Just How Much Would Bernie Sanders Tax Me?

This post has been edited to correct an overestimation of taxes under Bernie’s Social Security tax plan. A detailed log of changes is available on Github (04/21/2016)

There are a lot of misleading and false rumors being spread about democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders’s tax plans (TODO: link to Mom’s Facebook page for examples). With the recent release of his final tax plan, Medicare for All, Bernie has now described in detail precisely how each of his programs would be paid for. With this information, I have completed a comprehensive analysis of the impact that Bernie’s plans would have in the incomes of American families. The result is that more than 70% of families would save significant amounts of money under Bernie’s plans. The greatest savings would be for a family with an annual income of $34,000 or 140% of the Federal Poverty Level. This family would have $8,933 more in their pockets each year. The median family, with an income of $66,633, would save $7,729 per year.

Total burden of federal taxes and healthcare for a family of 4 filing joint taxes
Total burden of federal taxes and healthcare for a family of 4 filing joint taxes

For this chart and the figures quoted above, I have considered a family of four that files joint taxes and resides in a state that accepted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. The dark line in the chart shows the current burden of taxes and healthcare based as a percentage of gross income. The light blue line shows what that total burden would be with all of Bernie’s tax plans in action. Green shaded areas indicate which income levels would save money under Bernie’s plans, and orange shaded areas indicate which incomes would pay more.

From left to right, increasing levels of income are shown. They are spaced out based on percentile rank, that is how many families are represented by each income level according to the 2014 U.S. Census. Information is limited regrading the incomes of wealthy families, so all that can be presented is that the top 4% of families have an average income of $402,000.

From bottom to top, the burden of taxes and healthcare increases. This is the portion of their total income that a family spends on federal taxes, healthcare premiums, and out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures like co-pays and deductibles. If a family receives money back in tax refunds from the Earned Income Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit that exceeds their costs, then they will have a negative burden.


Families under the 25th percentile, which have a negative net burden due to tax credits and Medicaid, would see no changes under Bernie’s plans. Families with incomes from the 25th percentile level up to just over the 95th percentile would save money. The remaining families with incomes greater than $280,000, less than 5% of all families, would pay more. Additionally, the current tax system is mostly flat from the lower middle to upper classes, meaning we expect the same contributions as a proportion of income from relatively poor families as we do from those with plenty. Under Bernie’s tax plans, the tax system would be progressive, reducing the burden on those with the least.

When I started supporting Bernie Sanders for President, I fully expected to pay a little bit more to ensure that all of my neighbors were guaranteed access to healthcare and a decent standard of living. That would have been a good deal in my book. The fact that he can do all of that and more while saving money for the vast majority of Americans is a nice bonus, though.

Take Action

Want to live in country with fairer taxes, an honest campaign finance system, and accessible healthcare for all? You can with these three weird tricks that plutocrats hate:

  1. generic lasix online turkish viagra http://go.culinaryinstitute.edu/write-my-essay-4-me-discount/ research paper rubric 5th grade see url https://pharmacy.chsu.edu/pages/cheap-descriptive-essay-ghostwriters-site-for-university/45/ bend lasix movie review of this week http://www.conn29th.org/university/buy-an-essay-online-now.htm reflection essay sample nursing help with astronomy dissertation chapter design thesis topics for architecture example anecdote essay doing homework after school venta viagra & cialis contrareembolso amoxil left out of fridge http://mcorchestra.org/288-college-student-resume-help/ doctoral thesis committee to kill a mockingbird essay https://www.cochise.edu/academic/essay-writers-for-sale/32/ essay writing introduction help argument thesis formula buy viagra online in south africa go here tips essay writing http://hyperbaricnurses.org/6453-viagra-price-online/ quanto que custa viagra depression research paper topics public policy paper topics top papers ghostwriters for hire for mba https://www.dimensionsdance.org/pack/3698-best-prices-viagra.html follow site Join the campaign
  2. Donate to the campaign
  3. Help Bernie connect with his supporters by phone banking

What’s Included in the Calculations

The following current expenses and tax programs are included:

  • Federal income tax
  • Social security tax
  • Medicare tax
  • Average family healthcare premiums for employer sponsored insurance
  • Average family out of pocket healthcare expenditures for employer sponsored insurance or average Medicaid out of pocket expenditures
  • IRS standard deductions
  • IRS personal exemptions
  • Earned Income Tax Credit
  • Child Tax Credit

The following Bernie Sanders programs and tax plans are included:

Check under the Hood

The remainder of this post will details the sources and calculations used in my analysis. For rates that vary by year, the amount for 2015 was used. You can also view the full source code on GitHub.

Federal income tax

Source: IRS
Calculation: Simple marginal tax brackets, IRS deductions applied
Changes under Bernie: Different brackets and higher marginal rates on highest incomes

Social security tax

Source: IRS
Calculation: Flat tax on first $118,500, no tax on remaining income
Changes under Bernie: No change for incomes up to $250,000. Any income over $250,000 is taxed at the same flat rate as the first $118,500.

Medicare tax

Source: IRS
Calculation: Simple marginal tax brackets.
Changes under Bernie: None.

healthcare premiums

Source: 2015 Milliman Medical Index
Calculation: Fixed amount set at national average for families of 4 with employer sponsored insurance (page 7 in the above report). Reduced to $0 for Medicaid-eligible.
Changes under Bernie: $0 healthcare premiums for all

healthcare Out-of-Pocket Expenses

Source: 2015 Milliman Medical Index, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Calculation: Fixed amount set at national average for families of 4 with employer sponsored insurance (page 7 in the above report). Fixed rate of 2.4% of income for Medicaid-eligible; based on most recent available data from 2002 and thus likely to be underestimated.
Changes under Bernie: $0 healthcare out-of-pocket for all

IRS standard deductions

Source: IRS
Calculation: 2015 fixed amount for married filing jointly
Changes under Bernie: none

IRS personal exemptions

Source: IRS
Calculation: Fixed amount per person in family with gradual phase out for incomes over $309,900
Changes under Bernie: none

Earned Income Tax Credit

Source: IRS, Federal Register via Cornell Law
Calculation: Complex phase-in based on earned income and phase-out based on adjusted gross income. 2015 max of $5,548. Refundable.
Changes under Bernie: none

Child Tax Credit

Source: IRS
Calculation: Flat amount per child, phase-out for incomes over $110,000 (AGI), refundable up to 15% of earned income over $3,000.
Changes under Bernie: none

MEdicare for All Tax

Source: BernieSanders.com
New under Bernie: Flat rate of 2.2% on all income. An additional 6.2% payroll tax is also collected from employers, but this will be offset by savings to employers from no longer having to pay healthcare premiums, and employers will save money on most employees as a result.

Family and Medical Leave Tax

Source: Senator Gillibrand
New under Bernie: 0.2% tax on income up to $113,700

Other Details

Income distributions are taken from the US Census tables for family incomes in 2014.

What’s Not Included

Many of Bernie’s plans are funded by closing tax loopholes used by wealthy individuals and corporations and taxing investment income more fairly like earned income. These don’t affect most families and are not included here. You can find the details on BernieSanders.com

Creative Commons License“Just How Much Will Bernie Sanders Tax Me?” by datatitian.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Just How Much Would Bernie Sanders Tax Me?

415 thoughts on “Just How Much Would Bernie Sanders Tax Me?

  1. You didn’t include a calculation of expenses saved from Sanders’ free public university tuition plan. While finding figures that are separated by income bracket may be difficult, there are aggregate costs which could be averaged to get a figure.

      1. I am paying for 50% with loans of my 3 kids college tution at publuc colleges (they are paying 25%), and we saved another 25%. In 75% bracket according to your chart. The loans cost me $1600 month now and will jump to 2K per month in 3 years when youngest graduates. (That’s roughly 24K / year. There is also a tax deduction of college loan interest, but i Believe it is capped.

        1. Good for you, that you can afford to help your kids go to college. It’d be nice to even earn the $24K you’ll be paying at length per year for their educations. What pittance of your income is this? It’s good there’re still people like you, who can still afford these things, but the reality for most of us is that beginning with the steel industry, then the loggers, then the ____industry (fill in the blanks), etc., etc., etc., most have been really hard hit since the ’70’s (probably before), and the trickle-up has taken time. But it’s good now if those (perhaps like you) who’ve been able to avoid the ramifications of the downturn (i.e. universities, doctors, lawyers, politicians, insurance companies, wall street-types, bankers, corporate America) are finally getting a reality check, because, end of the day, we’re neighbors. We’re all in this together, and it needs to improve, not just for the top few, but for the majority.

          1. I’m not sure you understood the above posters comment. They stated that they are in the 75% bracket. That means that up to 25% of families earn more than them. I’m not sure why that would compel you to assume they are so rich that 24k per year (which could be nearly a 5th of their total gross income) would be insignificant to them. Also, if they work on Wall St (an example you mentioned) and earn $150K a year, they would probably have a lower quality of life living on that in NYC than would someone earning 50k in a rural community. Given that $65k is the median family income, and 50% of the population does not live in high cost cities such as NYC, DC, SF, San Diego, Boston etc. They poster you’ve lambasted could very easily be have a high stress job and very little to show for it.

          2. @SROD Your rant reeks of sugar coated jealousy. For a family of 4, $107000 isn’t really out of reach and it’s really not that much now a days. Between me and my wife our income is a little below that and I’m a tech at a cable company and she just graduated with a nursing degree neither one are what you would consider jobs that would make you rich.

            I like how you threw the, “perhaps you” so you would have an out. That’s akin to saying not to be rude right before you say something really rude. Well since all you saw was that he was paying half of their 3 kids college loans and he paid 24k a year and didn’t apply it to the chart. He will be saving an extra $7881 a year, that sounds like a good reality check to me.

          3. And this is precisely why socialism is so dangerous. The belief that someone else’s labor is something you at entitled to. Your words are clear. This person has more than me and that’s not right. I deserve the fruits of his labor. I want government to compel you to give it to me. The orbkem is you will never be happy and will always demand more. Free healthcare, college, daycare, and more. I pray you recognize you have everything within your self to succeed in this life. In spite of what you are told you can control your own destiny.

          4. Rarely, do these grandiose propsition work out. For one it doesn’t take into account market forces. The law of economics is the more demand you have for sonething the more it going to cost. government subsidizing will just create a bubble. This is exactly what happen with great depression with agriculture. The housing bust of 2008. It easy to forcast numbers when you always go by rosy numbers.

          5. Your really going to complain that people who bothered to take themself to school and make something for themselves based on their hard work and diligence paid off? While those that chose not to put forth the effort fell behind? Don’t bother with the lucky for you bla bla bla crap. I was born pore as dirt and have lived out of my parents since I was 15. I’m in the over 100k bracket. I feel zero sympathy for anyone who gives up and fails. Not everyone deserves to go to college and not everyone deserves health care. If people want these things then they need to stop with the cry baby crap and succeed on their own! You want it, earn it!

          1. I think your in for a big surprise…I wonder how long it will take before you people realize that as the value of labor gets closer and closer to 0.00 capitalism starts to die? What happens when robots(built by other robots) replace your kid’s jobs? Maybe you should sit down with them now and explain how your misconception of econimics and the meaning of government will put them in a very dark future.

      2. While his plan is good and all how am I supposed to pay my medical school bills? Making a median salary of 145,000 and being taxed for roughly 35% drops me down to 95,000. That’s a fair salary but then I’ll be paying close to 20,000 in malpractice insurance. So that leaves me with a hefty 75,000. Still a very comfortable living. Now to pay my student loans which comes out to 3,200 dollars each month (even with cutting the interest by half on now $500,000 loan) . Now for my 12 years of education I’ll be making just under 40,000 a year to live on.

        1. I’m single with no kids and live comfortably on less than $40,000.00. If you went to medical school to make money instead of to help people, I don’t want you to be my doctor. Or anyone else’s.

          1. That is sick to say – why in the hell shouldn’t he be able to make money by being a doctor ??? Spend hundreds of thousands on schilling and ridicule him for wanting to make money ? Get real lady

          2. There is a difference between “going to medical school to make money” …and expecting that after an additional 4 years of school plus three intensively underpaid and over-worked years as an intern and resident….that you will make less than a hairstylist. Or a first-year teacher (no offense, but it is just no where near as hard, and you start EARNING money at age 23, instead of piling up debt all thru your twenties and only getting your head above water in your 30’s…..it is actually sick that a first-year Wall street trader will make double what this guy makes. If you don’t reward the time and effort and the sheer fact that most people are just not smart enough to become doctors….you will have very few doctors in the future.

          3. She didn’t say he shouldn’t make money. She said that if that is WHY he became a doctor, (which I am not saying it is) instead of because he wants to help people, she wouldn’t want him for a doctor. That seems like pretty sound thinking to me. Are you saying that you would be happy to put your life in the in the hands of someone who cares more about his or her bottom line than about your health and even your life? About the health and lives of your loved ones?

            While I am not talking about Rob, because I don’t think that is what he is saying, but for doctors in general, they take an oath. The oath includes these lines:

            “I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

            I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”

            Becoming a doctor is supposed to be about helping and healing people. Not making a fat paycheck. That is a well-deserved perk, but should never be the reason to enter the profession.

          4. Translation – I am bitter cat lady who thinks she has the moral high ground but really is just a huge pain in the ass to everyone around her. I do not exceed in business, I do not exceed in my personal life and I think my way of living and point of view is important even though its likely the least relevant when talking about social issues.

          5. Are you serious? You clearly don’t understand what these people go through education wise and what their job entails. There’s a reason they get paid that much money. Give me a break…you can do a job you love but also be concerned about the salary

          6. This is an asinine comment. Universities don’t just invite you to class. It costs money. An exorbitant amount of money in fact. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to expect to live moderately comfortably after pouring all of your blood, sweat and tears into becoming a doctor. Not mention the enormous amount of stress physicians must be under.

          7. Yeah ok, he went through all that hardship of school to make no money, be real. All doctors are in it for the money, yes they want to help but also to be paid for it

          8. that’s totally unfair. if we’re going to raise minimum wage to $15/hr (which we should & bernie is shooting for), then a burger slinger at macd’s will be making $31,ooo/year or so. i think someone who spent a huge amount of time, effort & money to learn to heal people, & is paying off a huge debt for same, can be expected to make a helluva lot more than the burger slinger. i feel that doctors should be caring as well, but they still need to make a living.

          9. Priscilla, I invite you to go to medical school for 12 years and see what it is like, and what kind of sacrifices and risks people take these days to become doctors. It is grueling. You make less than 40K, do you raise a family on that? Do you work 60-70 hours a week and give up some weekends and weekday sleep hours to be on call in case there is some kind of emergency at your job? Did you take out 500K in loans in your own name just so you could serve others? Those who have high risk jobs that benefit humanity deserve some personal reward, in my opinion, not just an expectation that their service should come ‘on the house’ to the rest of us. If Rob’s story is typical, universal healthcare won’t add up to much since there won’t be a huge shortage of doctors to take care of us (like Canada).

          10. You have a very little understanding of what it takes to make a doctor. There are many struggles you must overcome and keep doing so once you begin to practice medicine. Yes, you have to have the inherent desire to help others because otherwise it would be a miserable living. But, what you don’t understand is that being a physician is physically, mentally, and emotionally taxing. You are responsible for the lives that come to you for help. It’s your call to make the decisions that will save someone’s life, and if heaven forbid they pass, that death weighs heavy on your mind, even if you did everything you could to save them. You are the responsible party if anything goes wrong, it’s your license on the line, not the nurses’, or the PAs, or the nurse practioners’, yours, and you depend on keeping your license to be able to provide for your family. When you come home, you have nothing left in you. Another aspect of the craft is the constant education. You are required to do recertifications every year, which by the way do not come cheap… over $1000k.
            To work so hard, and see a very large chunk of your hard earned money taken away, is difficult. What’s worse is when you see that the government spend that money irresponsibly. So if Bernie wants to pay off my $300k medical school loans, by all means, go on and tax me… Which at this point how much higher can we go from ~35% taxation.
            Please educate yourself before you make a harsh judgement and question someone’s integrity. Don’t just assume that people who make more than you don’t deserve their money. They have worked very hard to get to where they are. If that’s not the lifestyle you chose for yourself, fine, but don’t morally penalize others for having different ambitions.

          11. You’ve GOT to be kidding me lady! You seriously think doctors should treat people for free? Yes they went into the profession to help ppl but for nothing? Jesus you need a doctor NOW. That cool aid you’ve been drinking has eaten all your brain cells.
            Must be nice to be living comfortably. Be prepared to give all that up if this nut job is elected. People like you are what makes me scared for the future of this country! Smh….just go hide back under that rock. Evidently been there a while, no man no kids…even your POTENTIAL kids think you’re too nutty and stay away!

          12. shoot he can be my doctor, atleast i know he is driven and motivated to make a name and carreer for himself

          13. Nice to know that a single person with no kids can live on 40k a year. In other news, water is wet. Most docs are in their thirties when they graduate, and are married with families. Your post displays your selfishness and jealousy

          14. Just like a Socialist to expect someone else to study and work hard to achieve something that very few people are capable of, and then to just be satisfied to onlybhave as much to show for it as someone who does nothing and knows nothing. Penalize the productive to reward the unproductive. Redistribution of wealth. THIS is why Socialism never works and never will.

          15. Thanks Priscilla. Too many in the health care system are in it for the money. Then complain about malpractice insurance rates being high.

          16. Really?……you assume that this is his motivation but you don’t have any clue! If you had put in half of what it requires to be a provider, you would probably feel the same way. This is reality and whether you like it or not, thank god he is willing to put in so much time, effort and money to provide care to idiots like you!! Go Rob!

          17. Lloyd: “Too many in the health care system are in it for the money.” Oh, so you are doing your job for free because you aren’t in it for the money, Lloyd?!? smh…

          18. I’ll go home at 5:00 and take a one hour lunch and if you’re sick or dying oh well too bad so sad, cuz you don’t think I’ve earned it.

        2. Now u know how teachers feel like. Do it for the passion and reward, money comes second. Or work on a specialized field and get more $

          1. Would you be a teacher if you could not work for pay until you were a minimum of 27 yrs old, and then your starting salary was $35K a yr for 100+ hours a week of work – and don’t give me the I-bring-work-home stuff – EVERY professional does,. I mean 100+ hours on your feet, actually located in a hospital. Very little sleep…..then three more very rigid years, at only slightly better wages…I saw a tiny female resident break down crying because she was 8 months pregnant an couldn’t feel her laft leg from sciatica, but she still had 12 hr days, and couldn’t go on disability – because her residency allowed only 2 consecutive weeks off, total for the 3 year duration. She was saving it for the actual delivery and post partum recovery. Her only other choice was starting a new residency after the baby was born, losing two years of work. Teachers are really important and valuable….but I really hate the lack of perspective. I know an awful lot of C students who became teachers. They didn’t become Doctors.

          2. Thats why we have a terrible school system. Teaching for passion doesnt attract the best. It attracts the weird cat ladies. Check out our national rankings. (Drops mic)

          3. This is actually is not for Steven, it is for Jennifer.

            I have great respect for doctors and realize what grueling schedules they deal with during their training, but I would submit to you that:
            A) That is a separate issue altogether. There are many critics who think that should be changed and that sleep deprivation causes mistakes to be made that often result in serious harm or loss of life. That is an issue that needs to be addressed within the medical community. The general population did not create that training model. B) Those who choose to enter medical school hopefully do so with the understanding that the schedule WILL be grueling. If they don’t they should have investigated what they were signing up for more thoroughly. Although I have sympathy for the “…tiny female resident break down crying because she was 8 months pregnant and couldn’t feel her left leg from sciatica…” and I would not want to be her, she was in her position due to the life choices SHE made. SHE chose to go to med school. If HER pregnancy was planned, SHE chose that. If it was not, SHE chose the course of action that SHE did. SHE chose to continue her training through her pregnancy. SHE was in that situation, no matter how difficult, as a result of the choices SHE made.

            The rest of us are not responsible for her decisions or for yours, just as you (and she) are not responsible decisions I have made and then realized it was harder than I thought it would be. We all have choices to make in life. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.

          4. A paralegal, an extremely high stressed and thankless job, with a two year degree and additional certification might make $35k/year. And a rude, burger flinging hick with no education that can barely get a simple order correct wants a handout of over $31k/year to go along with their low cost housing through the housing authority and their free Obama phones. Not lovin’ it.

          5. Again with the cats, Richard! What is that the root of this bitter rivalry? Did a cat murder your family? Key your car? Steal your girlfriend?

          6. @Denise: So the girl who worked hard to get where she is can have your empathy for her pain but not your sympathy to offer to pay her an extra week of time off for her baby, your words, because those are life decisions she made. OK I am totally fine with that and agree. On the flip side, why then would you argue or allow someone else to argue that the rest of society should pay for their life decisions, say like going to college and taking out loans? You are literally saying the people who work really hard at what they do and make a living should not get any sympathy but the people who get useless degrees or less intensive degrees should get our help because they chose a profession that doesn’t require the same amount of hours or doesn’t get the same pay. That logic makes zero sense, is completely hypocritical (if not worse considering the people who actually work hard should get more of our sympathy than those that CHOOSE to not work as hard), and is just asinine thinking in general. Help the people not willing to put in the hours because that was their choice, but screw the people that do work the hours because that was their choice. Sums up your statement well.

          7. Teachers are a whiny bunch. “We don’t make much money” 🙁 Boo hoo.

            Suck it up, buttercup. You get 3 months paid vacation, 2 weeks at Christmas, a week in the spring, and plenty of holiday time off. Of course you will be paid less- you work less!

        3. I don’t mean this in a condescending way, but here goes: Perhaps you should’ve thought of this before going to medical school? I dropped out of college 2.5 years in because there was no way to pay, even for a state school, without taking on about $50k in loans, in addition to the $25k I already had. Some basic 2nd grade math made it very clear that taking out the loans wouldn’t be a good long-term investment. Instead, I began a career in outside sales. 9 years later, I’m 29, I manage a sales team that brings in approximately $40k per day in new business for a growing software company. I’ve earned between $125-185k annually on my W2 for each of the past 7 years, since I was 23. In the same span, I’ve paid more than $320,000 in income taxes, excise taxes, and real estate taxes. Not including tens of thousands in gas taxes, tolls and sales/meals/use taxes. I carry zero non-productive debt, I own my cars outright (2014 BMW 525i and a 2012 Chevy Cruze that I use for my day to day sales driving), I own a multi-family rental property with four apartments in it that will be paid off by 2021 at the current pace, 9 years after buying it, 21 years early on the mortgage. The multi family was only possible because I was able to wipe out my student debt in my first year after leaving college. While I could live rent free, I choose to pay myself $2,000/month in rent, in addition to the $2k I receive from each of my tenants. I have a 401(k) worth nearly $200k and am about to close on a single family home in a wealthy suburb of Boston, all before the age of 30. College education is great, but no degree is worth burying yourself in a mountain of debt for. Even for the prospect of a 6-figure income (remember, the further along universal healthcare moves, the lower that doctor’s salary is going to drop), it’s not worth the debt load. Especially once you discover that you can’t claim the interest as a deduction for income tax purposes once you earn more than about $70k on your W2. While my experience is different from Priscilla’s below, I completely agree with her statement….I don’t want you to be my doctor either. Nobody should be repaying your loans but yourself. You’ll learn more about finances and managing your life after college is over, and I promise you won’t feel the same way as you do today. The moment you start working 80 hours a week to earn a sizeable income and you look at your check only to notice it’s about 45% less than you expected to take home, your tune will change.

          1. And you have just perfectly proven the folly and stupidity behind the thinking of Sanders supporters. You’re making an argument for no doctors – great job. Someone goes to school for twelve years and works 20 hour days during a residency program in order to learn the intricacies of the human body and how to care for it. That way, when you’ve got a boo boo – there’s a qualified person who’ll bring to bear an immense amount of knowledge and skill to try to help you. If instead we go with your “perhaps you should’ve thought about that” argument – we will soon have a very large shortfall in physician numbers and people will go untreated, will suffer, and in some cases die unnecessarily. Nice job! Dedicating 12+ years of ine’s life deserves an incentive – and if you don’t understand that; you’re naive and intellectually pathetic with no common sense or understanding of what drives people and markets. Sure hope you don’t slip and hurt your back on your next sales call – the doctor’s not in

          2. KG, you seem to overlook that Bernie is touting FREE university. So, HOW hard would it be to “repay your debt” for FREE college? See how that works out? He solves that problem as well as the healthcare cost problem.
            Is it that you folks just LIKE the present nightmare and refuse to even consider improving on it? Should we continue saddling higher education with huge debt in the future because we do that NOW?
            And deep thinking could help. At 40k per year, he’d get offers for credit at zero percent for transfers of debt, which he could use to pay off portions of the school debt at zero, and save money. Creativity will help find the short way out of the debt.

          3. KG, go back and actually read Bernie’s stance on college. FREE.
            See if you can “pay that back”.
            This would mean that anyone, could “afford” to go to college and qualified students could go on to med school. SEEMS like a decent plan to me, and the fact it works in other nations, shows me that it is not a “pie in the sky” notion.

          4. Well aren’t you special, “Alexander the Great!” I hope you don’t need an orthopedist to check out your arm after patting yourself on the back so vigorously. I think it’s funny that the best doctors, the surgeons wear masks, when it is the bankers, fund managers, salesmen (kickbacks galore) middlemen, house flippers, payday lenders, and middle managers–who soak up 50% of their employees productivity–are the real bandits. They should wear crossed bandoliers, carry an AK-47 and put on a black ski mask! They are the real thieves in our society.

          5. hardwroc: Please explain to me how we can offer to pay tuitions for millions and not raise taxes on families? We currently run a deficit, so by definition we cannot afford more subsidies without running a further deficit all else being the same. It is not an infinite pot, so something somewhere would need to be cut extensively, more so than it already needs to be. By offering federal control over the universities, the feed gov’t would need to grow to accommodate those policies, further using up those tax dollars. Keep in mind State universities are already publically funded to drive down tuition costs. Also, with ‘free’ college, how do you go about the acceptance policy? Just being able to afford it doesn’t mean that you are qualified for it. What about those students whose parents have paid into a system that their kids cannot utilize because they are literally too dumb? And if there is a ‘lesser’ college that they are qualified for, does it make sense that their tuition should be the same price as the people who are making it into Ivy league schools, because it would be the same price for a less intensive degree. Are kids who don’t have the mental capacity to become engineers or doctors supposed to just get a useless psych degree that does nothing unless they continue on to a masters or doctorate to actually be able to apply that degree in their field, knowing that they won’t be able to get the masters because they don’t have the mental ability? So now we have millions of psych grads with no where to go because so few were able to get the qualifications to enter their field? What is the purpose of that? What about the 70% of prisoners in America that never made it through HS, how does free tuition help them? Now all these people are out all those tax dollars for something they will never use. How exactly did they save money? The OP’s post made perfect sense, he reviewed his situation and made the right choice for himself, and came out successful WITHOUT a college degree because he worked hard and put in the time. But you are arguing that all these kids that are taking out loans shouldn’t have to do the same because college is a right promised by the Constitution and should be provided by the gov’t? I believe that document says you have the right to pursuit of happiness, not a guarantee of happiness. Nowhere in that document does it say it is the Federal Gov’ts responsibility to provide free college to the citizens, and the 9th Amendment actual ensures that that is NOT the federal gov’ts responsibility. It is a CHOICE to go to college and is not a necessity to be successful or happy, and the OP is proof. It is NOT the responsibility of society to pay for your personal choices. The only way free college could work is if everyone regardless of career choice also made the exact same amount of money, otherwise people’s parents are paying similar percentages of their paycheck for a system that may or may not be used to the full extent by their children. But again, that would be a choice they made, so by the theory of free college then those that do not attend college (or enter a less intensive field) should get all those tax dollars back because it is society’s responsibility to stay flexible to the personal decisions of every citizen? I don’t think this clause is part of Bernie’s plan, is it?

        4. The U.S. real (inflation adjusted) median income for those who were male working full-time (40 hours) in 2014 was $50,383. (The average annual income for 2014 for females was $39,621). Incomes have stayed pretty stagnant for the past decade for men – so its unlikely this reflects an unusually low income statical “blip” for 2014.
          So what you are saying by announcing that your income would be/is $145,000 actually would mean you will have/ or have had a household income of more than 3 TIMES the average American worker. Even dropping it to $90,000 (after taxes) – that’s still almost double the income of the average American.
          As for your “tax of 35% drops me to $90,000” idea – that’s just not really true in practice. One would assume you would have more than the most basic of deductions – (and I think you got that figure by just taking 35% of $140,000 which is also not really how income tax works. That would be the MAXIMUM your income would drop by. Presumably as a smart doctor you would be deducting business expenses (Travel, meals, accommodations, office equipment and supplies, medical equipment, CME expenses, licensing fees, communication expenses, board exam fees etc.) As a smart doctor you would also be quickly converting that hefty high interest student loan into another form of lower cost loan by taking another loan (like a mortgage)- paying off the student loans and getting ANOTHER tax break on your interest (so win win).
          Malpractice insurance depends largely on where you live and what kind of practice you have. Sure the AVERAGE is $20,000 per year – but that depends on where you live (it can even change by county). In my area for example (WA state, rural small community) it’s around $10,000 for a basic internal medicine practitioner and if we go to South Dakota the same internal medicine practitioner would pay around $5,000 annually. People in big cities with specialties pay far more. It depends on how many malpractice suits happen in the area among other things).
          Yes – that’s a lot of money on the face of it. Its more money than most of us ever hold in our hands in a lifetime and I know it can be really frustrating to look at your paycheck and go “Whaaaaaat? Where did it all go?” But just an FYI – I am an adjunct professor who also spent twelve years on my education. Last year I made just under $22,000 as a community college teacher of over 300 students per year. So around half what you would make.

          1. You sure are mixing your facts there. Sure, malpractice is lower where you live – and a GP would expect to make $60,000 a year there, not $145K. Most doctors I know do not have a lot of personal deductions, because they are part of a practice, and the practice takes the deductions. Most doctors I know pay off their student loans sometime in their 40’s…and no, most do not take out a mortgage and use that to pay off their loans.

            Oh, and you taught over 300 students last year. Congratulations. My GP is in a practice of 5 people, and they have 22 THOUSAND patients. Thousand. THOUS-and.

          1. I am not a doctor, but I have come to rely for myself and the lives of my children on a close network of doctors, who can refer us to other good doctors for the medical problems we have due to a genetic condition (and no, I didn’t know about it before I had kids, in case you were wondering)…so I am appalled by what is happening to them. When they realize I actually care, they will tell me what life is getting to be like. Do some of them have mince houses now that they are older? Yes, they do. But I know mortgage brokers who have better. Docotrs are one of the few profession that really deserve much higher compensation than most. In fact, I will roll nurses and med techs and other people who have patient contact in with that. Have you ever had ovary -juice splashed in your face while emptying the surgical drain of a cancer patient? I have. Have you ever had to have a HIV test because you got a needle-srtick? I have. Have you ever had to wrap a dead body in plastic, or wash up a dead person so their family could see them, or wash the feces from between the toes of someone’s demented gramma? I have. Have you collected fallen, gangrenous toes from beneath the sheets of a diabetic patient? Found a dead fetus between the legs of a patient in a coma?

            40,000 is very livable you say. Now you know how teacher feel, someone else says.

            The fact is, people have to be paid if they are going to do things other people CAN’T (because they are not smart enough, have not studied enough) or WON’T (because it is too disturbing, or hard, or gross)…..

            I am sure you think of yourself as understanding. So understand that.

          2. I wanted to be a Dr, but had a stroke right after leaving college, followed by brain surgery…I tried again at age 30, ‘s after my brain had recovered, and worked as a medtech for 2 years at a teaching hospital while applying to to PA school (I had already decided that residency would eat up too much of my life, since I was getting a late start, and I saw how miserable residency was…) then I got pregnant, and they made no bones about denying me a place in the school unless I had live-in child care. So I said, screw the medical profession.

            There are times I still wish I had stuck it out, found a way to pay for a live-in…but I would not have had the cherished time I did with my children. In fact, I wouldn’t have had my second. That is how high the barriers are to becoming a doctor – you guys really ought to think about what would happen if we make the profession even less attractive.

          3. If you honestly believe doctors should be paid $40,000 then you must want to live in a society without doctors. As an emergency medicine doctor, I have cared for over 30,000 patients and saved countless lives. I love my job and am good at my job. But if my pay were to be cut to 40k a year I would quit tomorrow and go make more as a plumber. Does wanting a fair compensation for the highly skilled work I do make me a bad doctor? When there are less than 45 thousand people out of 350 million in the U.S. that can do my job, should I not be paid more than a car mechanic. Would you expect a mechanic to change out your brake pads for $5 because they love the work or are they changing out your brake pads because they expect to be paid a fair price for their service? My home state is already 1500 doctors short to meet the demands of the population, and this is only going to get worse as more baby boomer doctors retire and more baby boomers get sick. Expecting doctors to work for 40k a year would destroy our health care system and then no one will be able to see a competent physician when they really need one.

          4. What do you do for a living? Would you do it for 1/4 of what you should be paid for it?? No sane person would, so why demand that of a physician?

        5. According to Bernies tax plan you would be taxed a little under 20% (which is less than it is now) leaving you with a net income of 65,000 a year. Still a pretty good living. However if you and your wife or husband are both doctors you joint will probably be 100,000 a year.

          1. Not everyone is taxed the same. I’m taxed at nearly 30% with $20k income. That’s not even paying for the taxes on Obamacare either.

        6. I cannot imagine choosing to take on $500k in school loans!? No financial advisor would ever recommend that as a sound financial plan. Must feel overwhelming. I will graduate in 2 yrs with a masters in social work. While my income will never be more than abt $50k, I will only have $15k in loans. College is oppressivly expensive for most of us. That needs to change if we want to benefit from skilled doctors, scientists, teachers etc.

          1. There is a cheaper option community college. Or even trade schools. right now there are way to many kids in college that are just there to party and barely pass. if you are going to do anything less then doctor or engineering you could go to a community college or trade school. But then again if a community college grad and a ivy league grad applied for the same job guess who would get it. and everyone keeps forgetting there has always been a free college option, well we all know nothing is ever free. You could join the military while you are in you get free tuition, well you pay then the government repays you. And you get on the job training in thousands of fields. maybe we should make military service mandatory. And while you are enlisted you get free college. but that wont work because why work for something just make someone else pay for you and not have to do anything. we all know getting something handed to you makes you work that much harder. or is it actually better to work hard for something and feel like you earned something. see there is so many options to get cheap or free education it is just that most people feel that they should have it all handed to them. see college shouldn’t be free, now this would work better you pay for college and when you graduate with a masters at-least, you get a tax break to repay you for getting your education. and if you don’t graduate or drop out the whole cost falls on you. And FYI i went to the military and sacrificed everything to better my life because i couldn’t afford college on my own. i didn’t sit at home and cry i cant afford college. I didn’t demand that my family, neighbors and fellow Americans pay for my schooling and do nothing. I chose to serve and defend them so i could earn the money that paid for my education.

        7. Your peers who endorse this system can better explain why, as physicians, they support



          In regard to your student loans, Sen. Sanders has proposed that the interest on student loans be reduced:

          What has Bernie said about student loans and debt?
          In a speech at Johnston State College in Vermont, Bernie said, “We must fundamentally restructure our student loan program. It makes no sense that students and their parents are forced to pay interest rates for higher education loans that are much higher than they pay for car loans or housing mortgages. We must also end the practice of the government making $127 billion over the next decade in profits from student loans.” – From FeelTheBern.org

          If you read further, you will see that he proposes reducing the interest on current student loan to 2.35%.



          There are two lines of the Hippocratic oath that, in my opinion, should make all doctors support this, even if it were to reduce their income:

          “I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

          I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”

          I hope this will help you separate the truth about Sanders’s proposals from the mountains of propaganda being spread.

          1. The fact that Bernie sanders doesn’t understand the fundamental difference between a home mortgage and a college loan speaks volumes… Anyone willing to take economic advice from this loon likely also believes everything on the Internet is true.

            Let me explain why you can’t drop the interest rate on college loans to everyone on here that is feeling the Bern… One word… It’s called “collateral”.

            And yes, ironically enough folks, I too decided to join the ranks of many before me, and don the white coat (albeit a short white one since I’m only an M2). I taught at a private school for a few years before starting med school, and although I love people and want to be a proficient and skilled healer, I ultimately left a school paying me 48k/year so I could have a more comfortable life down the road. Yes, I’m taking over 300k in loans, and yes, I do expect to be paid well once it’s all said and done.

            Call me greedy. See if I care. If you were smart and could get a good MCAT score, you’d do it too.

            (If you didn’t understand what collateral is all about, I will be more than happy to expound upon this point in a later post)

          2. Please take an economics class or just be quiet and let the adults talk.
            And this goes to the commenter who does not know the difference between secured and unsecured debt, as well as the presidential candidate named Bernie who also doesn’t know the very basic building blocks of any economic theory… but thinks he can restructure tens of trillions of dollars in taxes and spending perfectly and not destroy the economy.


          3. Color me surprised that a group of doctors would support the idea of capturing more money and diverting it to their industry.

            It is not coincidence that the two things government subsidizes most– education and medical care– have seen explosive increases in cost. Those of us not economically illiterate understand precisely why.

            Google “Parkinson’s Law” and read up. Then email me if you still can’t see the relationship.

        8. You make a very valid point, so I would say get a really good tax person because a percentage of your map practice and interests on student loans is deductible. That helps a little but not much, especially being in such a challenging environment. As a holistic health practitioner myself, I understand how nice it would be to be compensated for all of your studies, and all you will do intellectually and emotionally to do a good job. I do not take insurance, which I absolutely love the freedom of that, but it means my prices have to be reasonable and affordable. I also get to spend as much time as I chose with each patient, which really provides the time to develop the symptom profile and develop the care protocol. But it also means I am really joining up with them in empty, which can be very draining, and in turn requires me to do a lot of self care. Without the funds to do that it makes my job harder and challenging to make sure I am healthy (physically and emotionally) to be available. 40,000 a year doesn’t leave much room for that, at all. Teachers, doctors, and daycare and emt’sshould be very well compensated and paid for what they do. Having the time for self care without worrying how to pay the bills makes us much better at what we do. Don’t listen to that lady, she has no idea what she’s talking about.

        9. I guess it’s small consolation, but in a National Health System it seems unlikely that you would pay your own malpractice insurance. If I’m right, you would be up to $60,000 a year…..about what your nurse makes.
          I can’t believe the smack your getting from all these people! There isn’t much understanding about medical training or work requirement by the public. They don’t understand that you go to school until you are 25 and then enter 4 to 10 years of indentured servitude as an intern, resident and fellow. Then when you are 30 to 35 years old you enter the labor market for the first time at an entry level salary with crushing debt from Med school. You then work long hours with terrible responsibility in the most heavily regulated profession in the country. You work weekends and holidays. You make decisions multiple times each day which can result in expenditure of thousands of dollars of medical resources. Ongoing education is required at your own expense.

          The lady who doesn’t want you as a doctor because of your post is looking for Mother Terresa to be her primary care physician. I took the Hippocratic Oath and nowhere does it require penury of physicians. I helped thousands, but I worry there will be no physician to care for me if the job ends up paying so little. I can see an argument that some highly compensated physicians should make less, but what Rob describes is ridiculous.

          1. Mother Theresa reportedly liked to stay in really nice hotels….even saints want some “nice in their life”. People need to get off their assessment and work for a living instead of wanting everything given to them. Unfortunately, a lot of people in our current climate of entitlement do not see that and expect to have the same level of income as those who work for years to get where they are. Sad for our country.

          1. You might not have had to borrow money if so many people weren’t also borrowing money to go to school.

            College degrees become a poorer investment with each passing year. I believe in education, but one need not go to college to be educated. Some institutions are actually barriers to education.

        10. Your effective tax rate would not be 35%. That is the marginal rate (ie the rate paid on income above a certain amount).

        11. Using an IBR (Income Based Repayment Plan) which is currently available you only pay 10% of your income/year. This works out to 1208.33/month, with about 2,000 in savings/month for you. Might want to check it out since that’s already on the books

        12. Student loans are only supposed to last 10 years, after that you get ur full remaining salary. And, many medical job offers come with student loan repayment of some percent.

        13. People with strong analytical skills often get their degrees in math, science, and engineering because they do these calculations before entering a degree program. That’s why they seldom end up working in a poverty-stricken profession. I guess it’s economic Darwinism in action.

        14. I work as a school teacher and have a master’s degree. I earn $35,000 a year. I work two jobs. You can do it. Oh, by the way, i also raised 3 kids on my own

        15. Ignoring all the squabbling going on, that’s actually one of Bernie’s points. He doesn’t want us to have those debts. So you’re comment warrants more of a question than it really is a complaint.

          Also, can you explain to me where you got 35%. According the chart, at 145,000, you’d be taxed at 20%. That puts you at 21k more than you’re numbers, or approximately $6,000 less than what you’d pay under the current system. But maybe I’m missing something. My point is, Bernie is likely part of the solution you’re looking for. As for those that want to tell us how Bernie is going to ruin the economy there’s a couple of things to keep in mind. 1) We can’t let corporate greed continue to drive us into the ground and 2) Bernie’s track record show’s he’s for the people. If/when a new problem arrises, he’s proven he’ll take the issue seriously and look for the best viable solution. Some of the solutions he’s proposing may not turn out to be pretty, but it’s because we didn’t do something about it sooner. If we continue down our current path, it’ll only get uglier to undo.

        16. That’s the idea though. You should not have more than your neighbor who just got that raise to flip burgers and combined with handouts and food stamps will bring in close to $40K with most being non-taxable income. Don’t worry, they’ll be getting a hefty tax return based on the kids they have while you will need to pay taxes at the end of the year if you miscalculated.

          1. you are wrong,mike g, if a person was making enough where 40k would be their total income,after foodstamps and welfare and tax benefits,then they would not qualify to get the foodstamps,or the welfare or anything else and would have to get insurance on their own. So I don’t want to see all these idioticy, un-thought about rants about these things. You don’ know what you are talking about,and should go to the “I don’t know what I am talking about” comment section instead of wasting my time with your idiocy,thank you

        17. If most or all of your income is from Wages & Salaries, it’s likely that under a Sanders Administration, your compensation will increase. He’s likely to promote legislation that will eliminate loopholes from corporate taxes like the Corporate Earnings Tax, so corporations would have a much greater incentive to pay your more, and hire more employees, than to take that $$ as Earnings and pay 30+% on it.

          Also, federal spending on infrastructure projects will put more people to work, increase the number of jobs, and reduce the competition for existing openings — and push wages up. A $15 minimum wage will also contribute to growth in the economy.

          If you’re a corporate CEO or hedge fund manager, and paid in capital gains, it’s gonna hurt. If you’re a corporate manager or director or VP, your salary will go up, but your stocks will go down (for a few years).

          1. Not at all. What’s likely under a Sanders administration is what happens every time you adopt socialism: a few elites a the top partner with a dependent class at the bottom to soak it to the middle. Steal for the needy to give to the greedy.

        18. It’s not quite as bad as you make it out to be. Your $40,000 a year is after taxes, after your insurance, and after your student loan. That’s 40k net. Are you single? those numbers of for family of 4 meaning 2 people work. If you are single which i’m assuming you are, you will taxed a little higher I would assume, I’m not sure what Bernies tax plan for single people is yet. Just don’t go overboard on a huge house and an itialian sports car and in the next 5 to 10 years when you income goes up you will be set.

        19. Yeah that’s kinda snug, but I had a wife and raised two girls grossing what you’re netting including ice skating for both and keeping the wife’s van fully covered.

          Like I said, snug but doable.

        20. As a family physician in privat practice I can also tell you that his plan that “doesn’t affect those making under $250,000” is a farce. It doesn’t address the hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are going to be hit with more employer taxes. It doesn’t take into account that in order to reach or exceed that $250,000 mark you have to work 60 or more hour weeks. If I am thinking about expanding and offering evening hours for my patients now that I’m an empty nester (something that would provide more jobs in my little community) do you think I am going to do that if it will mean more income tax, more Payroll tax etc on wealthy $250,000 little me? Absolutely not! I can guarantee you that I will make 249,000 a year for the rest of my career! Or less when he decides that is too wealthy also. Has anyone even considered what that will do to our economy? To jobs and employment? I would rather work extra hours in my free clinic than be taxed out of sight on that “wealthy income”. And thank God my student loans are paid lol.

          1. You clearly don’t understand how taxes work….You would only be taxed at the higher rate on the portion above $250,000. Derp. It wouldn’t affect the whole amount. If payroll taxes increased for all small businesses, including all their competitors, then they would all remain as competitive as they were before the new tax structure. Can you really get all the way through med school and establish your own practice and be this clueless??? or are you just trolling?

        21. You’ll be starting out at “just under” $40k a year take-home pay. That puts you on par with the average college graduate gross income. They’ll get to take home $30k, but will also have to deduct their student loans, so maybe they’ll keep $26.4k. Say you don’t like to be compared to kids with only a 4-year degree. I get it. The average 30-year-old male makes $30.5 a year with a take-home of $25k. That puts you ahead of them by $14-15k a year. You win.

        22. Sorry Dr Rob- Some folks just don’t get the cost involved to run a practice and latterly forced to pay malpractice (RAPE) insurance because everyone wants to SUE you. It’s no different for General Contractors and labor laws and compliance taxes, labor taxes, supplies and materials cost & taxes, Workmans Comp taxes, Liability Insurance , Vehicle Insurance cost of vehicles, cost of tools of the trade, cost of fuel, cost of advertisement, Cost of Licensing and Bonding, cost of flakes that lie about their experience and money dumped in to training them then they don’t show up and have to tolerate the Pricilla’s that just never get it. Those are the ones that fall for the happy talk politicians. But don’t worry They’ll never be able to afford it because they’ll never own a house never mind a Practice when you make $40K a year as a single parent and can’t figure out where you went wrong.

        23. I am confused…You took out a 500,000 dollar loan? $3200 per month. And you would not prefer free tuition? Wouldn’t your loan for living expenses be paid back soon after entering the profession? Where is the problem? Why would people then decide not to be doctors? $38000 more income per year wouldn’t help enough? Please enlighten me!

        24. ….I was born while my dad was in Medical School ( he went to KU ) in 1950, I don’t know for sure, but I am betting he used the GI bill as he was a B-17 pilot during WW2 , he went back into the Air Force when I was 3, for his internship, he was a GP for a year, then went to Cook County Hospital for his Ob-Gyn Residency, where, in his later part of the 3 year residency he made $165 a month as chief resident, $5 more than the other Residences….( 1956 to 1959)

          …..We lived in a rented house for 5 years after he finished, cause he still had to finish paying back loans from those student years …..

          .. I was 14 when my parents bought their first house ….many years after most folks of their generation had bought their first house …..

          …..My parents worked damned hard for what they got…..and we lived on a pittance for years…but I think that living on 40K a year now is about like what my folks lived on after Daddy started at the Clinic he joined ….

          …..Don’t feel discouraged, all doctors with most of the specialties, spend 12 years getting to the “I’m now a fully qualified MD”….that’s a given ….and unless you have very rich parents, all doctors have had to go into debt to reach that goal, and most all doctors DO have to pay off massive college debt….you are just starting out ….this is called paying your dues ….by choice, doctors start off later than their contemporaries ….even the lawyers ! ….

          …I take my hat off to you for choosing medicine, if you did it because you truly wanted to be a doctor ….if you did it so you could make a whole lot of money, hate to tell you, but there are a lot easier ways to do that ….but being a doctor comes with those kinds of perks you can’t buy, …big time respect,….people will listen to you, you are a person of power in your community …. and the financial rewards will come to you in a major way once the debts are paid off, unless you are foolish with money, you will always have enough to live a very comfortable life …..but the respect and power is your to enjoy NOW ! ….

          …My dad was a Marcus Welby in real life, a truly dedicated physician …..he was my hero for that, and the hero for many others ….may you become that kind of doctor yourself ….the money, power and respect was a bonus …..icing on the cake ….it was the love of helping people in the way he was brilliant at that kept him a happy and fulfilled man ….

        25. You are not taxed at 35%. Tax brackets work so that for the first so many dollars of your income, you pay 0%. Then for the next so many dollars, you pay a percentage of those earning. Then for the next so many dollars, you pay a higher percentage of *those* earnings.

          Under our current system, you pay 28% of every dollar earned after $90,000 and before $190,000. But because you paid a lower rate on the first $90,000 you earned, the effective overall tax rate on $145,000 is 20.18%, not 35% (which is the rate at which any income after the first $411,000 a person makes in a year is taxed).

          Federal income taxes for $145,000 are about $29,000. Less if you have any credits or deductions like for having children, medical bills, loan interest, etc. You will pay another $9,000 into social security and medicare. That still leaves you with $107,000 or more after federal taxes, not $95,000.

        26. You know what will help? When your taxes double- for the rest of your life- under Sanders economically illiterate plan. If you think that $75000 is ‘hefty’ I can only guess that you have not yet begun your adult life. Add a spouse, couple kids, cars, house…$75000 is barely middle class

          1. mike you should go to common sense school so you can figure it out(common sense).If you are making 75k a year and are barely middle class, then you should on your knees every hour thanking God that you have what you have. There are a lot of people who,yes,believe it or not,Probably work twice as hard as you do,with three jobs,getting there by bus,and still hope the lights are still on when they get home,if they have more than a room,since they cannot afford anything more than that,so I don’t want to hear your cry-baby story about how Senator Bernie Sanders is going to run you out of your home.

        27. Rob – One thing you’re missing (Not your fault… it’s not mentioned in the article, but it has been noted elsewhere) is that with the Medicare-for-all system, that malpractice insurance of $20k you mentioned would be much less (or possibly not necessary, I forget how it was explained)… at the very least, it would be considerably less

        28. You can deduct your malpractice premiums and student loan interest from your taxable income. Doing real rough quick math this should save you over 1ok a year. Your 40k is now 50k. Sure each year your loan interest will go down but you will also be paid more. Let’s also remember that a burger slinger has to pay taxes as well so they won’t make 31k. After taxes it’s more like 27k. Plus in 10-15 years if a burger slinger is a good burger slinger they will be making marginally more. If a doctor is a good doctor they will be making double or more and have no more 3k a month debt payments.

        29. That is the price you must pay for your MEDIAN income of 145K. No sympathy here. Nothing is free Rob. I am sure in 10 years you will have your big house,expensive cars and vacations twice a year, patience is a virtue, your life of luxury is not far off…..When I joined the Navy in 1986 with a wife and 2 kids I took home around 25K, we lived, not great but we survived without any assistance programs. My guess is that you will spend a lot of time at work for the next few years, do you really need that expensive house and a Ferrari? I think not……

        30. I think since we need doctors and nurses (as well as other professions, especially those we are apparently filling with H-B1 visa folks) that they should get a break on what they have to pay for their education and so forth instead of changing Bernie’s tax plan. I wouldn’t doubt that Bernie agrees, so, please, let’s fight for that and not against him.

        31. You are correct. There are millions who would be affected by the rollover. People who are forced to pay at the new rate that wont be able to benefit because they have outstanding loans and expenses from the old system. Difficult times indeed. Projections and calculations often do not anticipate reality.

          1. Exactly! Paying off your own loans while paying for the the next generation’s schooling wil be painful. And my taxes will go up too… why would I choose that path?

        32. is the malpractice insurance not tax deductible? (seems like something that should be.) maybe there’ll be a situation for doctors that wipes the slate clean after a certain number of years of repaying your loan on a sliding scale. (there’s a loan forgiveness plan in place for nurses, i don’t see why it shouldn’t be in place for doctors too.)

        33. When I went to law school 33 years ago I never thought that I would have to worry about my retirement. I thought I would have ample money to pay all my bills and then have all the luxuries I need. I have had my own practice for 30 years and have nothing to show for it. I only own a home because it was left to me, I drive a decent car and can afford an occasional vacation, (once every three years or so) but I have no plans to retire. I am taxed and insurance to death. I hope Bernie gets elected so maybe I can have a little security.

        34. Sander’s plan might not help you or even me. It’s for our children. When your child goes to college to become a doctor they and you won’t be paying for the schooling. Meaning later when that child is finished with school, the child would make more. Putting him right at that 75,000.00 range. That’s more then enough to live extremely well off of.

      3. If you do add that, could you please post it or update the post with it as a separate analysis? It’s helpful to point to the graph and say “these are the savings from the proposed health care plan” rather than trying to parse that out from a graph of aggregate savings. It’d be nice to see the total impact of Bernie’s platform, but each component will have to be passed separately.

      4. Will, what are your credentials re people taking your data seriously? I need to know before sharing this. Thank you.

      5. can you do the calculation for single people ie 0 deductions. I’d like to see what the chart looks like then (as I’m a single adult).

      6. The Tax Policy Center , has already proven what his “free” Tax Plan will cost and do and brace yourself, the middle class gets hit the hardest.

        Bernie’s worst enemy is a calculator and simple math. Not to be confused with Common Core Math.

      7. Are you a tax attorney or a CPA or an economist or does MS,RDN stand for Master of Science, Registered Dietitian and Nutrionist? I just wondered how your numbers could be so radical from all the tax economist. But I am just a hard working American who believes we pay too much taxes now we just need to look at how we allocate them. Perhaps if Bernie and his colleagues spent more than 134 days at work, that could happen.

    1. Dear Democrat Chartographers,
      Until you learn to make graphics where savings actually _look_ like savings, 90+% of everyone will continue thinking you couldn’t manage your way out of a wet paper bag.

      1. Perhaps learning to read a chart might in order? It’s pretty clear where the savings are. If you truly vote common sense and your pocket book (assuming you’re not in that top 1%), this is how you’ll vote.

      2. I agree. In order to pay for Bernie’s programs, the area under the curve for those who pay (the orange area) has to be the same size as the area under the curve for those who receive (the green area). They clearly are not. This means that either Bernie is planning to tax the top 5 %ile more than they actually earn, or the proposals are not going to happen.

        Which means they are not going to happen.

        So Bernie is either lying, or too stupid to realize what he has proposed. Take your pick, but Bernie is a loser.

        1. That’s not actually right. The Y axis is burden as a percentage of income on the X axis. So a 1″ vertical line represents more raw dollars the further to the right you move down the chart, because 10% of $35,000 is less than 10% of $100,000.

        2. Correct on all counts. I would add that this whole chart is bogus anyway, because even with all the increased revenue, spending will be increased more, adding to the debt to the point that we default or devalue. Can’t default or or creditors in Red China will nuke us, so we devalue the currency, wiping out everyone. Well, actually only those who managed to save some in spite of all the taxes. Isn’t redistribution of wealth dandy?

    2. That’s because Bernie is senile and thinks the rich will pay the high taxes without closing down their businesses. There will be less incentive to start new businesses as well… Other than Hillary being a utter disaster, he would be bad for this country…NO on Bernie

      1. Take a look at all the Corporate inversion s lately, they are leaving the US due to the high tax rate. Also, who do think pays those Corp taxes? We do it’s figured into the cost of the product you purchase.

        1. Not to mention most of the giant corporations are held in your retirement plans, whether you’ve got a 401(k), IRA, or a pension plan….the reason corporations “don’t make money” is because their profits are paid to their shareholders, who DO pay the taxes on them in the form of capital gains taxes or simple income taxes on dividends. But it’s easier for democrats to pull the wool over your eyes and show you that Verizon doesn’t pay income taxes….They’re right. Verizon doesn’t. Your retirement plan, which holds Verizon shares (because they’ve paid steady, predictable dividends for decades), is earning the income, not Verizon. Amazon doesn’t pay income taxes either….ya know why? Because they reinvest every cent of their profits in growing their business. It’s why they’re dominating the world. Who does pay taxes from Amazon’s income? Every one of their employees, and the vendors they purchase their goods from and their employees and shareholders. Nobody seems to understand how this works.

      2. Right, Cindy! I noticed that the $21k tax increase on the high-income earners was about the same salary my front desk help earns working 30 hours per week. I guess our CFO could just cut that job though.

        1. Yeh, hes just gonna cut that job, and answer the phones him-fucking-self. Are you retarded?

          And you think they are gonna close up shop and stop running a business? LOL Then what? They gonna move to fucking China? Let em! Have fun when you get executed for shit you would get a slap on the wrist for here! New businesses will start, run by people who are not sociopaths that feel the need to fuck over their countrymen, and give a respectful wage and living back to the American people.

          You Republican fools live in some sort of fantasy world, I wish you all would move to China and run your cheap factories and drive your SUVs like assholes and ruin that country and let us have ours back.

          1. Gee “Countryof Morons”, your screen name pretty much sums up you and most of the other people posting here, primarily about how it is fine to take from other people and give it to yourselves and then accuse those you take it from of being greedy. Most of you are practicing the age old politics of envy. The truth is, unless you enslave the best and brightest to do highly skilled and difficult jobs and pay them bupkis, they, being the intelligent people they are will simply find a gig where there are no midnight calls or working holidays, where severe work pressure amounts to almost being out of cash register tape. It is amazing to me however how convinced you all seem to be in your own belief that you know how much money should make someone happy. What’s next? Everyone should be happy having orange hair? People over 6 feet tall should have their legs shortened because they have an advantage in basketball? It is ALWAYS good to do the best you can and everyone who does deserves respect, but they do not deserve to be punished for achieving their goals by those who can’t or won’t.

          2. Ummm, this was never ‘your’ country. It was a country where you EARNED your way, and strove for success, not stole other’s labors and strove for equal mediocrity. “Your’ countries already exist, why don’t you go to one of those paradises?

          3. I’m pretty sure that it should be the country of anyone who so desires at this point, actually (with rare obvious exceptions). The United States that we know today was formed over centuries littered with embarrassingly cruel history in which the wealthy and powerful exploited anyone and anything possible. We murdered and raped millions of Natives Americans who already owned the land. We established the African Slave trade which, interestingly enough, using your words verbatim in “stole other people’s labors” is essentially synonymous with slavery. We intimidated anyone in our way and took whatever we want. For example, we stole half of Mexico (Cali, Arizona, New Mexico, etc.) in the late 1940’s giving up a joke in return in the form of just $15M by flexing military muscles as both sides understood clearly the devastating ramifications of a war. This is while Mexican immigrants in California were working in gold minds for pennies on the dollar of what white men were earning, constantly in fear of abuse, enduring more dangerous conditions and longer hours, etc. Exploitation. Exploitation. Exploitation.

            I am not attacking here and do not even completely disagree, but there is so much more to it.

      3. You clearly have no understanding of how corporations function, or where their incomes go. Please read on. There’s a massive deterrent to people starting small businesses, ones with employees, at least.

      4. Why would a person who has a compulsion to aquire wealth close down their means of aquiring wealth, simply because the wealth they are aquiring isnt as much as it used to be? Do people close buisinesses every time they made less money than previous years?

        1. No, Captain Oblivious! They move their companies to a country where they can pay less, skirt EPA requirements, labour laws, union wages, and pocket even more money. And pay no US taxes on their profit!

        2. A “compulsion to gain wealth?” Like people wanting to make themselves better is an affliction. Really you probably need to go back to college and get a marketable degree or go to a trade school. You have to be competitive in the real world to be successful and if that’s an affliction I guess I would rather have that than have the lazy affliction that is affecting most Americans now.

        3. They do when the rules of the game change to the point that they never will again. It’s happened before. When the govt. And tax policy becomes such a burden that it isn’t worth the trouble only a fool would continue.

      5. Claiming higher tax rates would drive away the Rich is classist fear mongering. I suggest that, if people were to throw away US citizenship just because their tax percentage increased, then so be it! Leaving would prove they only “love their country” if they can financially rape it. By your logic, there were no “small” businesses in the US during the broadly prosperous 50’s and 60’s, when the highest marginal tax rates varied between 70 and 92%. In fact, small businesses that employed American workers flourished at wages that allowed those workers to live comfortably and buy products manufactured by unionized American labor! Oh, and there was no shortage of millionaires either.

        1. Theoretical marginal tax rates in the 50’s and 60’s were as you describe, but actual tax rates were so much lower because of deductions. In fact, many of the richest paid no tax at all. The alternative minimum tax was created for just this reason. It was Reagan who eliminated all of these deductions.

          You are deluded if you think the 50’s and 60’s will ever return. That was a once-in-a-civilization time, created only by the residual of WWII. We didn’t dump all of those things in the 70’s because we wanted to. We were forced by the improving situation in the remainder of the world, Japan in particular.

          1. T-Mur – You are correct in that the prosperity of the 1960’s will never return. But it was OPEC oil pricing that started the decline of American prosperity in the 1970’s- no more 25 cent per gallon gasoline.

            It was not “the improving situation in the remainder of the world, Japan in particular.”

            The best economic indicator of prosperity is Real Wage per Hour. You hear politicians talk about Real Median Household Income – but that does not take into account increased number of hours worked and increases in dial income families.

            Real Wage per Hour peaked in 1973 and declined to it’s low point in 1995. It has steadily increased since then, but is still below 1973 levels.

            OPEC significantly increased oil prices during the 1973 oil embargo and prices have remained high since. Energy prices have a huge impact on the economy.

            Japan was prosperous in the 1980’s. Their prosperity was financed largely by debt, and they have paid dearly ever since.

        2. Oh, my god, overtime, the Rich have taken more and more… they need to feel socially responsible instead of being so damn greedy. That greed is what has been promoted. All the slave labor in third world countries is going to dry up soon anyway. I don’t want small businesses to suffer or not be able to startup, but that’s not what we are talking about here. We are talking about huge greedy corporations who are not just getting by with unlivable or slave wages, but are polluting, paying their top executives huge salaries and bonuses, and costing the public money (it costs us money in many ways to not pay people a living wage,e.g., Walmart welfare, it costs us to endure the health hazards they have created, e.g., fracking, and so on.) They are greedy because they have been allowed to be. It doesn’t have anything to do with not making a profit, they can and they will. They will have no choice if they have to play on a fair playing field.

      6. While I disagree with the “Bernie is senile” remark, I do agree the very rich would take as much of their biz an $$$$ as possible somewhere it won’t be heavily taxed (no matter how fair that tax may be). Upper middle and low-end wealthy citizens (who are not in a position to flee high taxes) will end up bearing the brunt of this new tax system. And the U.S. will lose business and Americans will lose jobs.

        1. ps…they all ready have…or haven’t you noticed…they want all the profits and feel no committment to the common good of society…feel no rsponsibility for the roads their businesses depnd upon, no responsibility to preseve the environment which we all depend upon, no responsibility for community welfare besides their own gated community, no rsponisibility for the quality of schools, just the profit they make from them….that’s not an American. That’s a global profitieer. That has to change. We are our brothers keeper and if you do not think so…take a good look at Flint, Mich…Detroit Mich, Chicago Ill, Philly Pa,….all governd for to enrich the richand destabilize the poor and increasingly the middle class also…Hardly managed as democracies. More like 3rd world nations.W have become the laughing stock of th world…they clearly see the gross inequity and injustice..why can’t you?

          1. Why the hell don’t you care about any of the above? You only act like you care because it isn’t your ass that is having to give up such a large percentage of what you worked for. Why don’t we make it a requirement for folks like you to open a business, work your ass off building it, taking all the risks yourself, working night and weekends while barely taking any income and then when it all finally pays off you have to give half of it to other lazy asses just like you. This conversation and that Loon Bernie are both plain silly and bordering ignorant.

        2. People, please keep in mind the max corporate tax rate in the US is 35%. The Republicants harp on this constantly. (Bitch, bitch, bitch.) But many US corps pay 0% in taxes. Loopholes, etc.
          So the average US tax rate comes out to about 17% for all the thousands of US corps. That is the same as the German tax rate. And Germany has the most successful economy in the EU. Most of the world falls into a similar range. Our corporate expatriation has to do with other factors: lower wages, incentives, offshore hiding places for profits. Our 1/10 of one percent don’t care where they retire. South of France, Tuscany, Dubuy, the Hamptons, anywhere. They will have their private security forces, their own water supply, even their oxygen, if needed. Their basic attitude is “screw ya’ll.”

        3. Nonsense. President Coolidge believed that cutting taxes on corporations and rich people, along with deregulation would create jobs. It created income inequality and then we got the crash in 1929. Then came the Great Depression.

      7. That’s the kicker! This chart shows what he proposes for families, and it looks all fine and dandy and it’s a unicorn and rainbow world. It doesn’t show what he wants to do to businesses. And when all the businesses flee the tax burden of a Sanders Socialist State, personal taxes won’t matter because a lot fewer people will have jobs. You want to see some real unemployment numbers? Let Sanders’ tax plan for businesses pass. You’ll shut down small businesses and run off any major corporation with the means to move before you can say “I didn’t vote for him…”

        1. Business has commended him for his small business plans,,,they work. Just ask Burlington VT…decades have passed since Sanders initiated those innovations,,,and the community liked them so much that thy are still in olace with no desire to change them. Businesses, including many billionairs and bankrs like Sanders’ business plans. FeelTheBern.org

        2. For businesses, for each worker with a family of four, who makes $50 thousand a year the employer on average pays $12,000+ per year, per employee. Under Bernie’s Medicare for all for that same worker with a family the employer would pay $3,000 per year per employee.

          Bernie is going to rape small businesses worse than President Obama did…
          No Bernie supporters are willing to state true facts, they rely on assumptions. Up and down this collective, people make rash assumptions. I am terrified of Sanders presidency. I know he wants to do what he believes is right, but I do not think he understands the consequences of his King George-esque taxation.

      1. Which has shown in other countries to drive down the volume of transactions, increase bid/ask spreads and in general hurt all investors. This includes 401(k) participants and retirees.

          1. A transaction tax like the one Bernie proposes has two main effects:

            1) markets become less efficient. This hurts all investors (despite what you think, the majority of “investors” in the US are people who have been contributing to 401ks etc); anyone with a 401k, pension, etc.
            2) markets become less liquid. This is what happened in 2008. This hurts all investors; anyone with a 401k, pension, etc.

        1. You are either a paid shill, make your living on the market, or dont know what you are talking about. There is no other option.

          On Wall St., they are using computers to trade in microseconds, massive share amounts, making fractions of a penny in fractions of a second, sucking wealth out of the economy, not strengthening it. .50 tax on $100 trade would practically eliminate this practice, making it not profitable enough/too risky. This would actually give more opportunity for the small time investor, the common American. Yknow, the guy that you personally dont want ot get in on the game youre winning.

          1. If it hurts investments…why is Iceland flourishing with the same policies in place?


            ow small? Really, really small. A bill co-introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., calls for a tax of 0.03 percent – that’s 30 cents per $1,000. Yet even at that exceedingly modest level, a Wall Street speculation tax (also known as a financial transaction tax or FTT) would generate more than $350 billion over the coming decade, according to a non-partisan analysis of similar legislation introduced in 2012.

            So we are talking about serious money, and a proven way to raise it. Similar taxes already exist in more than 30 countries, including the United Kingdom, South Korea, South Africa, India, Hong Kong and Brazil. Encouraged by their experience, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and seven other European countries are moving forward with plans to adopt a coordinated speculation tax.

            [See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

            It’s a tax – no getting around that. But it’s also a way to help close what amounts to a huge tax loophole. Americans pay sales taxes on all manner of goods and services. Wall Streeters don’t pay sales taxes when they buy and sell securities. That fact helps explain why the financial sector, which generates some 30 percent of the nation’s total corporate profits, pays only about 18 percent of corporate taxes.

            Revenue and fairness aside, a speculation tax can be crafted to reduce short-term bets and market volatility, drawing resources out of empty financial gamesmanship and back into job-creating private and public investment. That would be a strong argument for such a tax even if federal tax rates were not at a half-century low and the country badly in need of revenue.

            This unusual combination of benefits explains why Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chair Sheila Bair and Vanguard founder John Bogle, among other business leaders and economists, have spoken up for the idea.he industry’s other main line of argument – that a speculation tax would damage U.S. competitiveness and economic growth – runs aground on the successful experience of the U.K. and Hong Kong, two global giants of finance. It also collides with the fact that the United States itself had such a tax for much of the 20th century, with none of the dire consequences cited by today’s critics.

            One subsector of modern finance – the high-frequency traders who buy and sell in a time frame of seconds or minutes – might face a serious competitiveness problem; but that would be a blessing for the country as a whole. Even a minuscule speculation tax could throw a monkey-wrench into their business model. But much of what high-frequency traders do amounts to little more than glorified front-running or insider trading, based on privileged knowledge of breaking market trends. When they get things wrong, they cause debacles like the “Flash Crash” of May 2010; when they get things right, they extract money from the real economy to no purpose other than their own enrichment.

            The Wall Streeters have one compelling reason for opposing a speculation tax. They are battling against this idea out of an entirely reasonable concern that, once on the table, it will prove to be too attractive, and too sensible, for policymakers to resist.

    3. The cost of the free college is not even mentioned. Where is the pI
      Other tillion $ coming from for this. Economics is not his strong suit.

        1. Does anyone in their right mind think any taxes imposed on others will not affect you? Yes this sounds if those that are being taxed higher do nothing. It is a static plan, without reaction. That is not possible. The entertainment and the Pro sports industry will definitely respond. Are we going to pass laws prohibiting these people from charging more ? How will it affect the healthcare . Are doctors not allowed to charge what they want , as they essentially are now Govt employees ? Who would want to studying so hard to become a doctor then have over half taken away? Unless they get payed so much from the taxpayers it is irresistable. What would that cost taxpayers. Just a taste of the holes in socialism.

          1. Doctors are already not charging whatever they want, except for with the uninsured. Everyone with insurance pays a much lower rate than the doctor “charges” because our insurance companies have told the doctors they won’t pay that much. The doctors accept this because participating in insurance, even at the lower rates, brings them more patients. A doctor who won’t take insurance or whose prices are unaffordable doesn’t have many patients.

    4. He has not calculated the mere fact that individuals are to “work” for their rewards in life. We need to return to “those on welfare, are to find a job (if capable–taking health problems in consideration)
      There should not be “free” health care, lunches, etc. This does not mean we should not help the misfortune; however, that needs to return to the churches, organizations, etc. THE GOVERMENT NEEDS NOT TO BE IN OUR EVERDAY LIVES! MOVE TO A COUNTRY FOLLOWING YOUR DESIRES. SEE HOW YOU WILL ENJOY YOUR LIFE THERE!! I believe you would gladly return to the USA.

    5. How about this. We start with those that never had the chance to go on to future education? Let the younger people flip burgers or work wherever and see what it is like, as we had to do. We have earned it! For all! That’s what he said. I payed taxes my whole life and if he would be successful in pulling this scheme off and I can not stop it with my vote the older citizens who know what work is, we go first! And that would save BIG money! Because we would be there to learn not party or drop out. This man could never get my vote!

  2. I attempted to do this on my own in my “spare” time, using only my own situation as an example, and using 2.5% on my income and 6.5% on my employer. I also included in my current calculations the stated value (from my paystubs) of my employers contribution to my health insurance premiums. The results I posted on FB, but oddly none of my right-leaning friends responded. I much appreciate your more in-depth, and inclusive efforts. Thank you

    1. I’ve come to learn that when my right leaning friends don’t respond to my posts on social media, it’s because there’s no argument to be had.

    2. So I am not one of” your right-leaning friends”. But will gladly respond. Static plan . All your saved money will be spent on higher priced products. He will need why more revenue than stated . No one is falling for what they think it will cost. The ACA and everything associated with it was why off. Do you think older citizens should have the right to college? If not, why? I am 60 and have payed taxes all my life and was as poor as can be and never attended college . How about 50,40,30, year olds? Try and oppress them from education and make them pay for others. How much will it cost?

      1. I have nieces, nephews, and grandchildren that I care about. Several of them cannot afford college. I do not think in Bernie’s plan, we will be paying out any more overall.

  3. Both lines show up as blue… one is dark and one is light. So where is this red line…? Please fix your graphic… or are you trying to make it intentionally vague so people think Bernie will dramatically raise their taxes….?

  4. This is great! I was just having a discussion with somebody about this, my argument being that people complaining about Bernie’s tax plan raising taxes on the “middle class” have to include incomes of $250k in their definition of middle… Median wages be damned. They contended that with his also proposed lifting of the SS tax withholding cap that incomes over $118500 are affected (which I still think is a bit high to be “middle”… but anyway).

    Since you’ve already gone to the trouble to include SS tax withholding in your calculations, I wonder it wouldn’t be too difficult to model a lifting of the withholding cap too? I don’t want to conflate the two taxes, but it would be interesting to see the results if both tax reforms took effect.

    1. The change to the withholding cap is already included. They’ve set it up so it doesn’t kick in until you reach $250,000, but then it covers all income in the $118,500 – $250,000 gap as well. That’s why the chart has that jump at $250,000 under the Sanders plan. More details here.

      1. Would there be a bracket system as well or just a flat tax above an income of over $250,000?

        It seems foolish to treat a million dollars like a billion dollars to me.

    2. Having lived in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Portland I have to disagree on 100k not being included as middle class. For a lot of large metropolitan areas it is actually not unheard of for people to be making 120-almost 200k a year and still barely able to afford to buy a home. Or as was the case for myself and my spouse, impossible. Even with our debt down to two car payments we could not find a home to purchase (or even a condo) that was within our price range and not in a scary neighborhood.

      That’s actually the main reason we left those areas. Sure there was a 20% pay cut, but the housing costs were less than 50% what we were paying before so it worked out in our favor.

      1. Yes! This plan does not take into account geographical location. In order to live in the nations capital a family must earn roughly 70,000 a year just to make ends meet. I know plenty of people who will cut hours to earn 249,000 just to avoid losing 40% of their hard earned income.

      2. I say this as a fellow resident of an obscenely expensive coastal city where six figures is barely enough for a family to get by: We are statistical anomalies, and the reason $120K a year is barely enough here is not because taxes are too high. It’s because, as you allude, “The rent is too damn high!” Housing is the biggest expense for nearly everyone. We could easily carry an extra percentage or two of increased taxes if it didn’t cost $2,500-3,500 a month to live in a 2-bedroom apartment near transit, or $400,000-$1,000,000+ to buy a single family home within a 90-minute commute of the city.

        We shouldn’t base our tax brackets on the incomes of the 15 million or so Americans who live in LA, SF, DC, and NY. They are based on the incomes of the 285 million Americans who don’t. The tax code does try to somewhat adjust for cost of living differences with the mortgage interest deduction which helps people who have bought property in these areas, but doesn’t help renters at all. But 15 million people living in pockets of the country with a distorted economy isn’t a reason to change the definition of middle class when talking about policies for the whole country, any more than it’s a reason to sweep up 100 million Americans living middle class lives in middle America and give them poverty assistance because they wouldn’t be able to support themselves in one of the coastal cities.

        I probably support a geographic-based deduction for median cost of living. I’m even more in favor of loosening various regulations that artificially constrain the supply of housing, allowing these obscene housing costs. In my city it’s height limits on buildings, minimum square footage requirements, restrictions on mixed-use development, restrictions on how many families or unrelated adults can live in one home together, and so on. All of these things conspire to make our housing prices too high.

    3. Brian, please just keep in mind that $118,500 is indeed still middle class…at least in Alaska anyway and many other states. While we are blessed at $150K, we would not be considered ‘rich’ by anyone’s standards…not with the cost of living up here, especially when it comes to food, mortgages, and day care! You must account for cost of living across the US. Your recommendation in the second paragraph was great!

  5. Not including payroll taxes is criminally deceptive as their burden nearly entirely falls on workers. Payroll tax of 6.2 percent is not exactly trivial. Assuming 1 trillion in savings per year is ridiculous, especially if no claims are rejected and there are no copays or deductibles. Also Sanders website claims 450 dollar premiums per year and not 0 as claimed here.

    1. Thanks for the comment. Here’s a version that includes both employer and employee impact. For employers going through the transition, they will certainly reallocate the health plan funds they no longer need to the payroll tax since both are part of the total compensation package for their budget sheets. I don’t think it’s likely they’ll pass out raises with the excess, so including employer savings in the main chart would make things look more advantageous on Sanders’s plans than they really are.

      In regards to the $450 premium mentioned on Sanders’s site, he is referring to the cost from the 2.2% Medicare for All tax that is included in my model.

      1. Very nice work on the above graphs! Do you have a chart for how his plans would effect a single individual rather than a family?

        1. Would love to see that. Tax systems in this country have historically been designed to favor those with children. This is an old paradigm as large households are no longer the key to the country’s growth given automation. Having a child is a choice and should not result in entitlements.

      2. I agree. If the employer no longer has to pony up for health benefits, 6.2% is a small price to pay. On a person making $50K at my current employer, our health plan costs the employer 17.3%. It is a much higher percentage on those making lower amounts, as the health plan is fixed, where a payroll tax would be variable.

      3. Thanks so much for this Will! For those of us less chart literate… if you could articulate exactly what it says I would really appreciate it. It seems like the 8,000 figure was relating to increased costs for a certain percentile, while the other figured along that bottom line referred to annual income? So it doesnt make sense to me. I am SURE I am misreading it. Help? 🙂

      4. So in that tax model, employers who pay under 16.25/hr for full time employees will have a slightly larger tax burden per dollar paid. That’s not bad. And it would motivate employers to raise wages to that point if they’re close. Also in Sanders’ plan is a $15/hr federal minimum wage, so this is not much of a jump.

        I respectfully disagree with Haltingthoughts’ comments regarding the excessive 6% tax burden increase on employers. My family and I are employers who (at what we currently pay) would be hit by this tax increase. I personally think it’s fair and balanced. We will simply have to charge a little more for some items, but our prices are currently the lowest I’ve seen on what we sell. And besides, I would end up paying less personally in taxes and insurance, so if I took a pay cut equivalent to that I wouldn’t feel it.

        I pay about 3k/year in premiums currently for a lowest tier HMO. I currently pay more income tax than I would under Senator Sanders’ plan. I am a business owner, and as one I care about my employees’ welfare. Any responsible business owner would. This plan will NOT harm small business: it will make responsible business owners feel good about where their taxes are going, and it will make every individual feel good about the fact that EVERYONE and EVERY BUSINESS will pay their fair share without the legalized tax evasion called loopholes.

        1. Interesting thought, but as a small business employer the savings aren’t there for me overall. I would love to think that $3k year on premiums was realistic. That is my employer portion on a 25 year old employee (we pay 70%). As a middle aged person, family of 4 the premium is $2,200 per MONTH. Bernie’s plan does not replace that. Add social benefits always costs some one more. And the businesses that pay are the small stores down the street, the laundries, the mini marts, the pizza shops and so forth. Everyone likes to say Big business can afford it- the problem is most of the GNP does not come from big business, it comes from local businesses.

          1. Your comment is kind of confusing. How does Bernie Sander’s plan NOT replace your health insurance premiums? According to my calculations, in order for a premium of $2200 per month to be the same cost, you would have to pay yourself $315,000 taxed at both the EE and ER rates for a total tax of 8.4% or $2205 per month. And anyone with that income is being taxed more overall and quite honestly doesn’t have much sympathy from me. I am one of those small stores down the street that you mention. Right now we are paying $18000 a year in premiums for a family of 4. Under this plan, that would drop down to about $8500 annually. I’m having a hard time understanding how you can’t see a savings as an employer.

        2. Onward, I am a business owner, too – and I agree with you 100%. I think a lot of people fail to understand that smart employers recognize the value of a happy, healthy workforce. Lower turnover, higher productivity. And it seems to me that a lot of people also have this sick fantasy that our reaction to any change would be to simply close up shop. Preposterous. Remember all the businesses that were going to close or move to Mexico if the ACA passed? And all the owners who were going to fire anyone who voted for Obama? And all the huge layoffs that were threatened if he were re-elected, just on principle? What a load of bull.

          If you’re running a successful small business, you want your employees to succeed alongside you – they are the engine that drives your growth. And no owner worth his or her salt would ever give up their livelihood just to make a point. To do so would be insane.

      5. The initial comment is beyond spot on. The CBO, Joint Committee on Taxation, any self-respecting economist (Note: the economist used to analyze the program by Bernie did not include the employer ‘paid’ taxes) places the full burden of payroll taxes on the employee. Burying a more accurate (and less helpful) graph is the comments is still shady. I still am not certain the updated graph details the tax incidence being passed onto the employee though.

        Also unaddressed are the cost savings of ‘Medicare for All’ as currently Medicare denies claims, Sanders has made no mention (that I know of) about which, if any, claims will be denied under his plan.

      6. It’s laughable anyone thinks prices will be controlled with the expansion of government controlled healthcare. The government is inefficient is pretty much everything it does, why do Bernie supporters think this will be any different ?

        1. Medicare has shown to be cost effective as compared to private insurance expenditures. It’s called economies of scale and is taught to high schoolers and in any macroeconomics 101 ever taught. It seems that most of our politicians slept through this class.

          1. You are misinformed. Medicare appears efficient only because it off-loads costs onto other Federal departments. When measuring payment -per-client, rather than payment per input dollar, Medicare is less efficient than private insurers.

      7. This is a great explanation as to why you left the 6.2% payroll tax out of the calculations. I would recommend linking to this explanation in your description of under the MEDICARE FOR ALL TAX section.

        The caveat of this are small businesses who are below the 50 person threshold don’t have to purchase insurance for their employees. These business would see the 6.2% increase in the payroll tax, but wouldn’t have a “savings” since they are not providing health insurance.

        Great info, thank you.

        1. Just because they don’t “Have” to offer health insurance does not mean that they don’t. Additionally, many small business owners need to pay for their own health insurance at a minimum. So, most likely, they will be net neutral or a savings. I own a small business (5 employees including myself). We would see a savings of over $10000 on health insurance based on some quick calculations that I ran.

      8. Also most people are employeed by small businesses that have little to no benefits. So it would be a direct impact to small business owners. The self employed person also would suffer. Seeing there payroll tax go from 15% to 21.2%. You add that to 25%, or to the 28% income tax bracket along with state taxes the self employed person will see less than 50% of the incime they work for. I am for single payor healthcare, but we need to protect small and self employed persons as they are bigger drivers of the economy than large corporations.

      9. Great article! The one downfall I see to his plan so far is that it hurts very small businesses that could not afford healthcare if they tried- which means that in order to afford it they would need to cut costs somewhere- a 6.2% additional tax on employers is heavy

        1. Or you could say that small business will finally be able to afford healthcare, as this plan is much cheaper than current employer sponsored plans. This means that they’ll be able to attract better employee talent and do better overall.

          1. My husband and I run a small company, we have no need to expand nor do we need to attract new talent. So why should I pay 50% of what we earn in taxes… that is ridiculous. We already pay enough ( You are taxed when you pay the money to yourself and then again as income). We make a decent living at it but by no means live above our means, and are conserviative when it comes to spending and debt. This would force us to go out of business. How is that fair or smart business..

          2. I’m retired-but-still-self-employed, but in addition to the Medicare tax and a Part-D plan I also pay for dental insurance, long-term care insurance, and a Medicare supplement, all of which adds up to about $500 a month (on an income that averages about $35,000 a year including Social Security). Will Bernie’s plan expand Medicare to cover some of those other costs, thus offsetting the increased self-employment tax? (I’m for Bernie anyway, BTW.)

          3. “able to afford” isn’t the same as “forced to purchase”. They won’t be able to attract better employee talent and do better overall since all businesses will be providing healthcare it’s no longer a differentiation. They won’t do better overall since they now have an added expense that they didn’t have before. Have you actually run a small business? Just because you add on a 6.2% increase in your expenses doesn’t mean you can raise your prices 6.2% to offset it. If you remove the ability to make enough profit to make the business worth pursuing, you kill the jobs created by that business. Bernie’s math never really seems to add up.

          4. Rose colored fun house lenses. I think you mean small businesses will finally be forced to pay for healthcare. Couple that with a minimum wage increase and watch the astronomic rise in Small business failures!!!

            Who needs jobs when the govt pays for everything

          5. LO, I am curious, do you and your husband pay for Health Insurance for yourselves? If so, I recommend you do the following quick calculation. Total payroll x 6.2% + Your Income x 2.2%. Now compare that total to your annual health care premiums. That gives you a rough estimate of your savings or expense.

    2. I had the same thought; a 6.2% payroll tax will create an enormous burden that employees will ultimately have to share. Not all company are large corporations with endless pockets. The mid-size company with 100-200 employees with a $20 million dollar payroll isn’t necessarily going to be able to make $1.24 million extra appear without paycuts or layoffs; especially startups that are still working towards not posting a loss five years in as they are still growing. Whether that is okay or not is not the point though, the point is that it is not an insignificant variable by any means and to dismiss it as such significantly impacts the accuracy of your findings.

      1. They are not FINDING an ADDITIONAL $1.24M for the new tax. They would eliminate the $2+ million they currently pay for health insurance. That’s a savings.

    3. But, if employers are paying a portion of the employees insurance premium (usually a substantial amount), then the 6.2% would be far less. $62/$1000 is going to be way less than most current employer paid premiums.

    4. That payroll tax is coming right out of salaries, the contention that it doesn’t impact family incomes is laughable. I help run a professional services firm, and let me tell you I don’t have 6.2% of payroll sitting around in some fat cat fund. In professional services salaries = COGS and 6.2% would be absolutely disastrous to our growth targets for this year. Under this plan I’m either dropping salaries by 6.2%, making four less hires this year, or both.

      1. Well Jacob, I think its interesting that those are your only options….fuck someone else over! No mention at possibly dropping your own salary even 5 cents! You are the problem with American business. Constant growth is unsustainable. Growth targets every year are your problem.

        But of course, you cant ever understand that.

    1. Thanks for the comment. I’ve attempted to add a subscribe button in the on the right side above the search box

  6. This is so awesome. I would love a version where I can punch in my own financials and it will spit out personalized information about what would change under Bernie’s proposals. Anyone?

      1. I fiddled with the files from github to try to account for an individual or a family of two, but I wasn’t able to figure it out. An interactive version sounds even better though.

      2. I was thinking I’d love to see a version of this chart done by individual income, instead of family of 4. A personalized, interactive, version would be even better!

  7. This graphic seems to indicate a deficit of around $4,600 per family of 4. 5% of families will pay $20,000 more and 70% of families will pay $8,000 less. Is Bernie Sanders going to pull money out of his ass to cover the deficit?

      1. I admit that that report seems a bit opaque to me, compared to your analysis in the article. Is that basically indicating that corporations will be taxed more to offset the employer-provided healthcare they no longer need to provide? Or is it something else?

        Personally, I would’ve expected the “average” increased burden across the entire top 5% to be much higher than 20k, if only because of the percentage of the total wealth/income that that group controls….

        Anyway, nice article, thank you.

      2. The math doesn’t seem to add up. How can 5% of people pay $21,000 more and 70% pay an averate of $7-9,000 less?

        For easy numbers, lets assume that there are 100 people. 5 people pay $21,000 more= $105,000. Going on the low end of your numbers, 70 people pay $7,000 less= $490,000.
        Where is the extra $385,000 per 100 people going to come from?

      3. That info says the plan requires ~$1 trillion a year in new taxes to cover the cost of the program, but this graphic shows about $75 billion in new tax revenue. Someone is going to pay for it, and that should be reflected in this graphic of how much Bernie Sanders will tax people. If it’s a tax on businesses/corporations, then you are taxing the people who own the businesses/corporations. If you say all of the revenue will come from the top 5%, well there are at most 350 million people /family of 4 * 5% = 4.4 million families of 4 with household income in the top 5%. If it was split evenly amongst them that would be nearly $250,000 for each of them.

        1. I’m with Tony on this. I did the rough math and the gap is too large to just ignore here. If the efficiency savings are that significant with the medicare for all then you’d be justified in making the change even without restructuring the tax load. You might as well lower everyone’s taxes or ensure that nobody pays higher taxes under the change.

        2. This whole drama is pointless. There will never be enough money collected through any tax-on anyone-to cover the cost of Single-Payer. All these money sources are pipe dreams-like the $2,500./year savings we taxpayers were getting through Obamacare. There is not enough money in the country, maybe even the world, to pay for what Bernie is promising. We can’t pay the bills we have now-there has been an 8 trillion dollar deficit increase over Obama’s seven years & we owe 20 trillion dollars overall-and that’s just the federal government’s deficit: how much do the state’s have in unfunded liabilities.
          How can anyone, whose brain is not pulverized by a college education, look at the way government operates, and actually believe that it will provide all these benefits with no pain. My God, Look at how great the Feds operate the VA-it’s a government run, single payer, operation. Veterans are dying waiting for appointments. Their records are dumped in closets and basements, because the bureaucrats haven’t figured out a way to handle the workload. A new hospital that was supposed to cost a few hundred million is now at over a billion dollars-and it’s still not built.
          So, Let’s just cut the dopey Socialist “tax-the-rich” crap to pay for goodies and just skip taxing anyone. What would be the difference? We aren’t paying for what we have now.

          1. The deficit has actually decreased significantly under Obama 😉 Look it up. The economy is booming and the deficit’s way down compared to what it was prior…

        3. Remember that this shows taxes offset by current health insurance payments. Health insurance is primarily paid by employers and it’s a lot of money that they are paying out. For example, at companies where I have worked, my employers have paid 80% or more of my individual health insurance premiums. That’s huge; much bigger than my personal or family savings. Add in the fact that for-profit insurance is a major factor in driving up the healthcare costs, such that we spend multiple times per person what other countries with similar economies spend (and we’ve got lower average life expectancy than every one of them), and you should begin to understand how this is economically preferable to our current system.

          1. “Add in the fact that for-profit insurance is a major factor in driving up the healthcare costs, such that we spend multiple times per person what other countries with similar economies spend (and we’ve got lower average life expectancy than every one of them), and you should begin to understand how this is economically preferable to our current system.”

            This is mistaken. For-profit insurance has not driven up the costs of other things we insure–businesses, cars, life insurance, etc. Why is healthcare different? First, health insurance is more payment plan than insurance. Insurance is designed to pool risk and cost of isolated, unpredictable events– a car wreck, or someone dying. There are fixed liabilities pre-defined and the actuarial value is somewhat easily determined.

            But with health ‘insurance’ we are paying for regular events that are somewhat foreseeable– colds, checkups, etc. AND we are lumping together in the same pool high cost events (cancer, major injury, etc) with the routinely predictable expenses.

            But the biggest reason– and it’s one we cannot overstate– is government subsidy. Like college tuition, the more the government helps people pay for something, the more expensive it gets. It artificially increases demand. Why be a discerning consumer when someone else is paying part of all of the bill? Why not go to ER instead of urgent care when someone else is paying? The price system communicates information about what, when, and how to consume. Government subsidies turn that communication to gibberish.

            When I was in the military, housing stipends were calculated based on a periodic survey of rental expenses in an area. When rents went up, the housing allowing went up. What was the effect of the higher allowances? Rents went up FURTHER. Why? Because the demand increased faster than the supply could be increased.

            We aren’t making more doctors fast enough to meet our needs. It’s hard enough to make one under ideal conditions, never mind after demoralizing them by turning them all into government employees. And the monopoly the AMA has a accreditation of medical schools- what of that? Do you think the AMA has an incentive to increase the rate at which new doctors are made, increase the supply of doctors, and drive down the incomes of their members? Of course not. And do the medical schools want more medical schools around, or do they want to be able to keep medical school costs at exorbitant levels? Especially since the high costs are paid up front by taxpayer-guaranteed credit that’s essentially zero risk to them?

            Since LBJ’s Great Society we have doubled down on social welfare and insurance schemes, yet with little actual effectiveness. We spend trillions on welfare programs, but don’t actually improve poverty. We double and triple spending on public education, but our kids fall further behind. We crank up spending on healthcare, yet our benchmarks in global standing do not improve, they get worse.

            Maybe it’s time we tried something different rather than more of the same.

        4. In that narrow 5%, think about it(!), we’re NOT talking about 4.4 million people who only earn a measly $250,000, they’re portion would be tiny compared to the top 1-2%er’s; it’s more like the many multi-million, and billionaires who will foot the bill, and guess what? They’re going to be paying a lot more than $250,000 apiece! Use your noggin! LOL

      4. You found one economist who agrees with those numbers, but a lot more vastly dispute a lot of it. Friedman is making some assumptions that are just laughable if you actually read his report. I can go into greater detail on this if you prefer, but basically he’s hiding increased costs of the Medicare for all program by randomly deciding to double the cost of “continued government spending” over most projections. This effectively hides $12.5 trillion from the cost-savings analysis, or about $1.2 trillion a year (though it would be less in the first few years and way more by the end).

        That $12.5 trillion gets directly added the federal deficit, significantly increasing costs to middle income families by crowding out private borrowing, increasing interest rates, and significant inflation increases.

    1. Unbelievable, we’re being shafted by a vicious elite and you’re having a go at Sanders; Americans are politically ignorant.

      1. It makes me so sad, that such a beautiful, amazing country is filled with such fucking dolts.

        But its not their fault, theyve been flouridating the water here since like the 50s.

      2. Yes, someone gives you a cogent and reasoned response and all you have is ad hominem.

        And you are fallaciously generalizing to all Americans from one comment. Heck, that generalization would be more supported by your own ad hominem, no-evidence, no-logic response than by Jeff’s.

    2. $20,000 is the median, not the average of the increase. $20,000 is how much an increase of somebody at the 2.5% position would get. The top 1% or top .1% would have an increase of much much more.

      Not sure how misleading this graph is. It might be more fair to show the percentage increase/decrease in expenses (thus for the very top the cost goes from 37% to 40% of income, and is thus an increase of 7.5%). But that would make it look like the savings go to infinity for the person where the cost goes to zero under his plan. Maybe plot both.

    1. I agree, I enjoyed this analysis, but it doesn’t have a lot of relevancy for me as I’m single with no dependents and that’s not going to change anytime soon.

      I’m certainly a Sanders supporter, but my one concerned is that the costs of this might fall disproportionately on those who live in cities. Where I live (Washington DC) the cost of living is very high, and while the pay compensates for that, under a much higher tax regime I worry that individuals will be taxed quite higher than those in other areas even though their cost of living is as high or higher than those in other areas.

      What I’d love to see Sanders propose is a cost of living credit that adjusts taxes slightly for those in high cost areas to compensate for this. Otherwise, I have no problem ‘paying more to get more’ so to speak.

    2. I would also be interested in single, no dependents. This group tends to be or at least feel taxed more because of the various tax benefits in having dependents.

  8. Look, there’s no way the extreme right side of this graph is correct.

    Just taking marginal tax rates, Bernie wants the marginal tax rate on those making more than $500,000 a year to be 43%, and then you need to add on the additional payroll surtaxes. The highest tax bracket is around 52%, and with the surtaxes would be closer to 60%.

    So, the curve must approach 60%, roughly, on the right axis. Either I don’t understand what you’ve done, or you’ve cut the graph off early in an incredibly sophist attempt to make the orange part look really small when it should be alarmingly large.

  9. Higher tax for incomes above 250,000? Yeah that’s a bunch of cra p. Why should I pay more? Flat tax is the only answer, get rid of all these loopholes and make it fair for all. Not just incomes under a certain amount. If it does not benefit all, it will never be right.

  10. So my brother who worked his a$$ off to become a doctor has to pay even MORE now? He told me what he currently pays in taxes and I started leaning right. Its redicous. He earned and deserves to keep his income, not pay even more under the Bernie plan. Just my opinion.

  11. Hey Will,

    First off, I’d like to tip my hat off to you on your impressive work here. I’m not a Bernie supporter but I respect the great effort.

    One problem I do have with this analysis however, and maybe it crossed your mind when you excluded the additional payroll tax is that employer insurance is paid by employers, not employees, thus it is part of the employee’s total compensation, it is not an expense.

    Even if all of that money was converted into raises(unlikely) the employee would still end up with less total compensation due to the fact that employer insurance is tax deductible for the employer and the new wages will incur current rates and future payroll increases under Bernie.

    So there are no direct savings to be had for the hundreds of millions of people currently benefiting from this arrangement.

    1. To further clarify, to make sense for the workers currently benefiting from the status quo, the new government benefit would have to deliver value in excess of the reduced compensation and lost health plan in the form of better healthcare coverage, both in benefits and network. Many single payer proponents claim Medicare in fact does this, though considering the fact that Medicare faces questions with long term solvency, I imagine that in fact what we will end up with is more like Medicaid for all.

  12. There is nothing here to show how much total tax revenue would be under Bernie’s plans. Anyone have that number?

  13. This what he needs to show the American public in his campaign speeches and ads. There are still too many, corporate media included, people who simply focus on “raising taxes”. This demonstration would be an eye opener to so many.

  14. Sorry, but the magical waving of hands to declare that there will be no deficit is something only a complete rube would fall for. The assumptions built into that report are entirely unreasonable.

    This plan is one that includes a huge structural deficit that you can’t simply explain away through expected savings.

  15. What happens when you tax so high that you take away incentive to work? We all can’t get free stuff. Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.

  16. So an individual making 220,000 a year, will pay close to 35% (77k) in annual taxes for net disposable income of $143,000; whereas an individual making 204,000 a year will pay 22% or 45,000 per year for a net disposable income of 159,000. I must be reading this wrong. Is it a marginal rate or a flat rate on gross income?

    1. Correction. I just read your comments above on marginal up to 250. My concern with a flat is the disincentive for creating additional income. I’d be curious to see the impact on wealth creation versus staying just below 205 or 220.

  17. I’m interested in what happens above the 206k mark, since that really isn’t much for a family of four. Can you expand your graph up to $1m/year? Thanks

  18. I got into an argument with a guy who is also a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist. He claims that we can’t actually know how much money Bernie will raise through his proposed funding plans. He goes so far as to say that most of the loopholes aren’t even loopholes, that when companies engage in business transactions abroad, that transaction is not subject to US taxation, but rather the taxation laws of the country in which it was conducted, and, therefore, the resulting profit or loss is also a matter of legal concern with respect to the country hosting the transaction. Why should I believe you over him…

    I should also say that he’s given me excellent advice on nutritional matters, so there’s that.

  19. Wow, excellent break down of this topic. Although a fiscal conservative, I can still compliment you on a well written and analyzed topic. I am truly impressed. While I completely respect your view, have you considered the “big picture” of what you’re supporting? This mindset will, inevitably, break our socio-economic infrastructure. Hey don’t get me wrong, it sounds awesome for our generation now, but long-term it can’t last. At the core, the problem with wealth redistribution is that you end up with people who won’t work and contribute. Trust me I’ve personally seen this happen. Needs and wants drive the economy. This innate desire is what built our country. If you take that desire or need away, a large majority of people will never work a minute in their life. I mean why would a person want to work if their needs are met? If our standard of living is maintained by our government why bother? Long term, people will not work as hard or as much or not at all which means to maintain your standard of living you have to force contributions, which is communism. Although well meaning, is that the life you want to leave future generations?

    1. This reasoning makes sense for most things; for example, it makes sense for food. If you hand out all the food people need, then they have no incentive to work in order to be able to buy food.

      This reasoning does not work the same way for health care or education, though. Health care and education are the fundamentals of maintaining a capable workforce at all. Subsidizing these is not a handout; it’s a critical investment in our future as a civilization. Every child who receives substandard health care or education or who bears a massive burden based on the costs for these things is a child who is much less likely to ever contribute optimally in the workforce in the future.

      Moreover, private health care in particular has very serious problems built into the foundation of its current incentive structure. Economically, the incentive for health care providers is not in making people healthier – it’s in making people believe their health is paramount, while selling as much treatment as possible. This is such an obvious problem that it really makes the whole concept of privatized health care look very silly, from the perspective of any nation with public health care.

  20. People like me with $1,050/month in student loan debt ($89,000 still outstanding), came from a lower class family, worked my ass off and built a business to make upper middle class income to pay off my loans, pay my employees very well and help feed their families, and for a better future for mine, will now have to start paying for other people’s schooling on top of it? Do you have any idea how much of an insult that is? Just the fact that I own a business (a very small one) means I am taxed an extra 8-20% by default with no real reason for a company the size of mine. Just keep piling it on. Why try?

    1. Nevermind the fact that single payer health care and more broadly available education would almost certainly benefit you personally in many ways (including financially) – Paying for education for anyone isn’t an insult, and this type of thought should be instantly problematic to you. It makes me worried for you reading it.

  21. Hi there! I really appreciate the time you put into this graphic, but is there any way for you to calculate how closing all the loopholes will affect the top 5%? I am really interested in the numbers for families earning in the 200k – 500k range (or under 1mil, if that’s easier). It seems a little deceptive to say average increase of $20,000 for all families with incomes over $250,000 … when the departing tax exemptions and closed loopholes are bound to increase the costs for these individuals as well. Since you say the increase is an average for the top 5% category, I’m guessing the families in the $250,000 range would be paying less than $20,ooo in increases and that the increase grows proportionally as incomes go up. Is that accurate?

  22. Explain how under the medicaid the flat tax of 2.2% and an additional 6.2% does not effect the family? If my math is correct that is an adfitional 8.4% tax boosting an emploee up to about 30% of taxavle income. Meaning that is less money to take home to a family. Also, in addition, what is Bernies plan of action when public companies go private and speculation goes overseas instead of staying on wall Street. Thereby avoiding his proposed tax?

  23. While your analysis is helpful for families, it’s not for individuals. Especially individuals who freelance or temp. and don’t have employer benefits.

    If an individual has to make up for the employer paid portion of Medicare that makes it nearly 8 1/2% tax just for health insurance, add in the extra .2% for family/medical leave and now we’re closer to 9%. That’s more than I’m paying now (I don’t qualify for subsidies). That would break me. I don’t have any one to help with the rent/ mortgage living expenses. I know this isn’t just about me, but I’m not the only single w/no family just keeping my head above water. So, I would like to know exactly how single people will be affected.

  24. Here’s the problem I’m having with this breakdown. The range of income contained in the top 5% is monumentally larger than the range in the 95%. So I would be curious to see what the difference is for the bottom of the 5% versus the average of the .000000000001% and the 5% and everyone in between. Believe it or not, in some regions of the country, it’s very difficult to put two kids through school and live a modest lifestyle with $250k in annual income. That seems to be the thing the Senator is overlooking.

    1. And, to clarify, “college for all” is public college for all. Some students–particularly students with learning disadvantages–cannot handle the massive scale of a state school. My siblings, who suffer from dyspraxia, dyslexia and ADHD, could never succeed in a place where large lectures are common.

      1. Believe it or not, public universities in countries around the world (where education is massively subsidized) – and in the United States, too – offer programmes and assistance for wide ranges of needs.

  25. Is anyone concerned about the overall quality of care and access to care under a Government run health care system? I grew up in Canada and continue to see the differences between the USA and Canadian systems as my parents age in Canada and I live here in the US with private health care. My Mother has been hospitalized 3 times in the past 2 years and every time, she is stuck in a hallway for 2-4 days while she awaits a bed. Medical tests take weeks to schedule due to lack of available labs and equipment and lack of funding. Doctors are underpaid and rushed if you can even get an appointment. Sure, what we have doesn’t work but the alternatives aren’t working either because inevitably Governments underfund the healthcare system as they attempt to win votes by capping tax increases. It’s a mess. Same in many places in Europe with ‘medical care for all’

    1. In what hospitals in Canada has your mother been “stuck in a hallway for 2-4 days awaiting a bed”?
      I took my father to an emergency room in Ottawa, Canada TODAY for pneumonia complicated by chemotherapy for multiple myeloma.
      Within 45 minutes of arriving at the ER he had been assessed, registered, and had a chest X-ray taken. Within 2 hours, he had a private bed in Emergent Care. Tonight, he is sleeping comfortably there on IV antibiotics.
      Your alleged experience with Canadian health care seems unlikely to me.

  26. Bernie has made some dangerous statements about mortgage interest deduction too, changes to that would have a significant impact on families as well. Also, rather than going to a single payer healthcare model why not adopt the Dutch approach of leaving insurance in the hands of private companies but requiring them to offer subsidized plans to the poor? Eliminating copays, negotiated reimbursements, HMOs, PPOs, and all the other wasteful complexity in our system would fix the whole health insurance issue. The problem in the US isn’t that there isn’t enough money in the system to provide excellent care to all, it’s the comically Rube Goldbergian bureaucratic hell we’ve created around it.

  27. So where does he fund anything other than Medicare for All? In your initial source, the only data contained is involving Medicare for All. It talks nothing about funding the military, keeping up with welfare and unemployment on the federal level, and surely doesn’t address the ~10% in taxes we pay each year already as interest on our debt.

  28. Thanks for helping we folks who find it a somewhat daunting and intimidating process in understanding Bernie Sanders’ tax proposal, or any candidate’s tax proposals for that matter.
    That being said, to date he’s the only candidate I’ve seen that has gone to such lengths in wanting to help people understand exactly what his proposals are regarding tax reform.

  29. This “article” is mathematically ludicrous. Let me explain: If we take the most recent estimate of the US population (325 million which comes to 81.25 hypothetical families of 4 alluded to in this article) and subtract the 25% which this article claims have no change in tax/healthcare burden, we get 60.9375 million families of 4 who have a change in tax/healthcare burden. Of that 60.9375 million, the article alleges 56.875 million families of four will save, on average, more than $8,500 each (I’m being conservative since the article’s numbers are not elegantly displayed for the purpose of averaging), or a total of $517,968,750,000 (around 518 billion dollars). The article then claims that the top 5% (or 4.0625 million families of four) have their burdens increased by $21,585 or a total of $87,689,062,500 (around 88 billion dollars). My question is: Who the hell is paying the 430 billion dollar deficit? I don’t understand how people can make a chart without even knowing basic arithmetic. My guess is the author probably does know and is being purposefully misleading. If you want to support some trendy politician, at least be honest and mention that they want to use a credit card for their programs and pass it on to the next rectilocutor in 4 or 8 years.

  30. The math doesn’t seem to add up. How can 5% of people pay $21,000 more and 70% pay an averate of $7-9,000 less?

    For easy numbers, lets assume that there are 100 people. 5 people pay $21,000 more= $105,000. Going on the low end of your numbers, 70 people pay $7,000 less= $490,000.
    Where is the extra $385,000 per 100 people going to come from?

  31. This is the best presentation of Bernie Sanders taxation plan – such great interactive information here! Thank you for all your hard work and good explanations!

  32. For every action, there is a reaction…what would/could top 5% do (if anything) in order to keep taxes from raising substantially? Seems like there is always a way to shift/adapt in order to keep taxes as low as possible.

    1. Also how does a substantial tax increase on highest of earners affect those whom the wealthy employee directly or indirectly? Example – private jets. It seems like an unnecessary luxury until you realize all the people who earn their living operating, maintaining, servicing, manufacturing, insuring, selling, etc. those aircraft.

  33. Why would he do this? We are saving so much on obamacare already! Now we will be saving even more?? Things just keep getting better and better. Now we just need to make home ownership a right and guarantee every one a 40 hour work week at $30 an hour and we can live the lives we should be living rather than being wage slaves. If president Sanders will just increase taxes to 95% on the rich 1% that will go a long way to setting things right. Next we can tax corporations profits at 95%. That way they will have to pay for the evil they do. Then they will essentially be a non-profit organization and they can start working for the people instead of the people working for them. If we just have government take as much money as it can from all those people who have money we can balance the budget too. Stand up comrades the new revolution has begun! We pledge our loyalty to president Sanders and he will lead us to a new paradise! A new tomorrow! A new socialist nation that will be a shining light to the world. To hell with the flag, to hell with the constitution it’s a dirty old piece of cloth and a tattered piece of paper that is totally irrelevant in a modern world. The only allegiance we should pledge is to president Sanders. He is the only one who can bring the rich to their knees. Once they are on their knees we will put our boots on their throats and let them know the people will no longer be their pawns. Rise up, rise up, there is a new day!

  34. Cutrently I have a premium healthcare plan. Paid 80% by my employer, now if that is counted as income (it is)then should it not be figured as a loss when I am forced to accept inferior insurance. Also should we not count the loss a value? I have worked and fought to reach this level. And some now think they can just vote away what I have earned. Not without a fight! Be ready there are many like me, we will not go down without a fight.

    1. Why do so many replies to progressive ideas read basically like “ME ME ME, IT’S ALL ABOUT ME.” These replies are usually accompanied by stern reprimands of “entitlements” like accessible quality education and health care, the things which enable people to work productively in the first place.

      For the record, I have a Ph.D., work for a small start-up company, and love every part of my job and my life. But fortunately, I live in Canada. Because this (not ubiquitous, but at least common) attitude from the US is truly chilling.

  35. What if my employer pays the majority of my healthcare expenses now? (I pay 40 a month for healthcare). If i make the medium income, 60k, how would I save any money from this plan?

  36. The assertion that “the current tax system is mostly flat from the lower middle to upper classes, meaning we expect the same contributions as a proportion of income from relatively poor families as we do from those with plenty” is false. Along the same lines, the statement, “Under Bernie’s tax plans, the tax system would be progressive,” implies the current tax system isn’t progressive, also false.

    Based on 2015 federal income tax brackets, the marginal tax rate for the median income is 25%, compared to 39.6% for the top bracket. This is by definition a progressive tax system.

    Calling a 14.6% difference “mostly flat” and implying we don’t currently have a progressive tax system is misleading at best. I have to question the qualifications and/or integrity of the author based on these inaccuracies.

  37. I have a question about the numbers used for healthcare expenses. You say to look at page 7 of the Milliman report, but that is on prescription drug costs. I see on another page that cost for the typical family of four is $24,671 with the employer paying roughly $14,000 and the employee paying roughly $10,000. In the calculations you show in your graphic, which of these numbers are you using as the current annual healthcare expense for a family of four? I currently spend approximately $1,800 a year in combined premiums, co-pays, deductible, and out of pocket healthcare expenses. So, using your graphic, my “$7,881 in savings” could actually be an increase in my tax burden depending on which numbers you used. Thanks in advance for providing more information.

  38. How can Bernie’s plan save a person more in taxes than that person and their employer combined pay in taxes? I’ve been a certified tax preparer for over three decades, his numbers don’t add up!

  39. Looks good to me, 2.2% of income to pay for health care is not a bad thing. Remember that Social Security recipients pay $100+ per month for Medicare with a $150 annual deductible. On a $1000 per week salary the payment for Medicare for all is only $22.00 weekly. Cheaper than any policy provided by those benefactors called Insurance Companies. You get “nothin’ for nothin’; and damned little for 25 cents anymore”.
    We probably could have had “Single Payer” instead of the Affordable Care Act but our Republican brethren would never have permitted that to happen; especially from this President. It’s time for the USA to join the rest of the Industrialized Nations and have a health care system that helps people.

  40. This is amazing!

    I agree that there needs to be an individual tax payer version with no dependents.

    Also, I’m still not seeing how you’re factoring in payroll taxes? With my own estimation as an individual, I only save a few hundred dollars. I’m not great at this stuff.

  41. Alchemy. lol somehow costs go down when government takes over or will we only pay our doctors 30000 per year and free tuition i guess all those professors will need to take a pay cut. Limiting capitalism will create no incentive to make better medicines. No one that is comptent enough to work on our bodies will become doctors and the decline of America is almost there.

    1. Capitalism is a powerful tool to create positive change in quality of life, but it’s not guaranteed to do that.

      Actually, reducing financial incentives in medical research would almost certainly result in better research. There are huge concerns about the degree of fraud (or at least exaggeration) in medical science publishing currently. It is worth a lot of money to demonstrate that a drug works – or to claim that it does. When something can be an outlier in terms of financial motive, you start getting strange behaviour. We want researchers who really want to solve research problems – and we should reward them appropriately. But we do not want researchers who really want to earn a lot of money because research is a good way to earn money.

      Monetary motives are specious, and often dangerous in a profound way.

  42. Increasing payroll tax on employers will increase overall cost of each employee, unless employers reduce wages. Why won’t employers cut wages under this plan? Or reduce hiring?

  43. What’s the easiest way to calculate a version of this for self-employed people making between $150k and $250k per year?

  44. I’m a non-traditional first year medical student at a private university. By the time I graduate, I will have accrued roughly $270k in debt. Add in the fact that I will be working as a resident (for about $56k/year) for the next 3-5 years, and I’m looking at over $325k in debt by the time I begin practicing. Now, imagine I enter into internal medicine or some primary care specialty and make say close to $210k/year. My significant other is a physical therapist ($187k in student loan debt mind you), but let’s add her income to that too (+$80k/year = $290k/year). After the 40% tax, that leaves $116k/year, tack on another 15% for state income and you’re looking at $72.5k/year. Finally, take out student loan payments of about $40k/year (remember, most medical schools in this country are private and wouldn’t fall under Bernie’s free tuition) and you’re looking at $32.5k/year in take home pay. That would mean that for a 65 hour/week job (let’s say with four weeks vacation) I would make ~$10.41/hour in take home pay. I’m a big supporter of Bernie’s vision, and his politics. But I can’t help but be worried that voting for him would leave cases like me in a hopeless future, working a high stress, high risk job for so little take home pay. Does Bernie have a plan for us? The ones who rack up so much debt and time working to help others (hopefully in a single-payer system) or are we lost in the shuffle?

    1. Hey, so I’m not sure if you know how taxes are calculated. The US works on a marginal tax rate system, so (for example) the first $18,550 of income is taxed at 10%, the next $56,750 is taxed at 15%, and so on. Bernie’s plan would add a 37% marginal tax rate to income from $250,000 to $500,000, so $40,000 of your $290,000 would be taxed at this 37% rate.

      Your total income tax liability, based on the tax brackets below $250,000 (which will remain unchanged) and including the new ones Bernie has proposed above $250,000 would be:
      10% of income from $0 to $18,550 = $1,855
      15% of income from $18,551 to $75,300 = $8,512.50
      25% of income from $75,301 to $151,900 = $19,150
      28% of income from $151,901 to $231,450 = $22,274
      33% of income from $231,451 to $250,000 = $6,121.50
      37% of income from $250,000 to your total salary of $290,000 = $14,800.

      If we add these all up, we get the full taxes paid across your salary. This comes to $72,731. This leaves you with $217,269 after federal income tax, representing a 25% effective tax rate. You would owe 25% of your total salary in federal income tax.

      Now, let’s subtract the 2.2% income-based premium. This leaves you with $210,889.

      Now let’s subtract the 15% in state income you mention (a quick aside – the highest top MARGINAL state income tax rate in the nation is California at 13.3%. Again, there’s a difference between marginal tax rate and effective tax rate, so 15% as a state income tax rate is not believable for two reasons). This leaves you with $167,389.

      Now we’ll subtract your student loan debt of $40,000. This leaves you with $127,389. At 65 hours a week and four weeks of vacation, that makes your hourly rate $40.82 an hour.

      Note that subtracting your student loan debt before calculating your hourly rate doesn’t really make sense – you are taking home $53.65/hour, you just have to pay some of that in student loan debt. People don’t subtract their mortgage and car payment and credit card debt from their income to calculate take-home pay. Take-home is simply gross income less taxes.

      Anyways, hope that cleared things up for you!

      P.S. – (one of) your key errors was multiplying your tax rate of 40% by your income to get your take-home after federal income tax. If your effective tax rate is 40% (which, again, it’s not), it means you pay 40% of your income in taxes. The math for what you keep would then be either a) your salary X 60% or b) your salary – (your salary X 40%).

      P.P.S. – You actually get to deduct state and local income taxes on your federal taxes each year. If your state tax rate is actually 15% (which I highly doubt), you’d save a lot of money by doing that if you haven’t been.

  45. Interesting article and graph. I’m curious how much a single person with a salary of $80K would save? I suck at tax calculations. I REALLY want to get behind Bernie and more socialist healthcare, but it’s just so hard to believe the quality of our healthcare wouldn’t suffer some. As a cancer survivor, I have a lot of dr. appts and prescriptions and am constantly worried it might come back.

  46. Everything is always calculated on “a family of four”. While this may be the average, what about single filers? Talk about a demographic that needs a break, that’s definitely one…

  47. Technically, the President of the United States has far more power in foreign issues than domestic. Sanders may wish to change a lot of things, but without a Congress that wants to go along, he may find this nigh impossible.

    It is all fine and good to have a vision. However, that vision really needs to coincide with the office you are running for – the President of the United States is not that office.

  48. I’m wondering how this plan will affect those who are (either out of necessity or by their choice) on assisted income…. meaning welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc. I find it a very bitter pill to swallow when I see those living in a run-down section of town driving a Lexus, wearing expensive brand- name clothes, sporting several tattoos, talking on an iPhone 6 while smoking while I, who work 3 jobs to make ends meet, drive a 16 year old car, go to consignment stores for clothes and save for extras. Will there be a justification for that?

  49. So, what you’re saying is that if I work harder and make more money I will pay more taxes, but if I work less harder and make less money I get to pay less taxes. No Thanks

    1. You’re dumb. If you make more money, you will still have more money. The amount of “less money” you pay in taxes by working “less harder” will always leave you will a smaller net income, than if you made more money. Do you know how a progressive tax works? You don’t seem smart enough to demand that high of an income though so you shouldn’t worry yourself.

  50. We do understand that those top 5% make up for the majority of our business owners/employers. Right?
    Ok, so let’s say I’ve busted my ass for the last 15 years creating my business. Now, I’m not working 30-40 hr weeks like my employees. I’m working 70-90 weeks ( believe me, this IS my own reality of running a small business). Let’s say I’ve come to a point in my career where I’m now a 5 percenter! My taxable income is now $150,000! Now, let’s take off 30% for taxes. This leaves me with $105,000! My hard work has still paid off! I paid $45,000 in taxes, but, I’m just doing my part as a American. Wait…….now, I have another $22,000 tax. Now I have $83,000 and $67,000 has gone to taxes or a 15% hike. That’s huge seeing as how The top earner at my construction company is making $58,000 and he SAVES $9,000 a year on bernies plan. We’ll leave his $9,000 though. I am making $25,000 more than my top earner and work twice+ as much. Does this really drive any incentive for people to go out and be entrepreneurs? No, the point of opening a business is to make money.
    I worked for a contractor for a number of years. I was making $12 (pre 1099) so, around $10 for hard manual labor. I realized my employer was never going to pay me for what I was worth. So, rather than bitching and protesting, I got my ass down to the county clerk, bought a $33 DBA business lisence and stared my own business. I more than quadrupled my income. Again, I didn’t got on strike. I just did it. Why? Because in this very country that you guys want to make a socialist country…….we can still do that. I urge you to go to ANY other country and try to do this. Why do you think we have a Illegal immigration issue? Because, in this country you can still strive to be whatever you want to be. That’s why. If I am nabbed with another $22,000 tax, then guess what. Some people will be getting laid off. Do you really think nearly alllllllll small business owners out there busting their backs aren’t going to do the same? Of course. When you take incentive away then you take the drive to be better away.
    The socialist idea sounds great! It really does! I look at places like Amsterdam, Paris, London, etc. where the parks are flooded with people sun bathing and riding bikes. Then they go home to there 400 sqft shoebox apartment that looks awesome and enchanting because the building is 700 years old. The reality is that they are all minions. You see, the top earners and royalty aren’t doing that, are they? No. Those top earners live in countryside estates, mansions and castles. There is no middle class. It’s a world of mini coopers and bentleys. Either you are a minion in you tiny apartment who goes to work each day to pay for your families fun time (because the government subsidizes everything in your life because you pay 70% of your income to them and own nothing of your own……it’s all government property). Or, you hardly work, you’re from old money and you drive around in your Bentley, hanging out with royalty. You don’t have your 1,500-3,000 middle class homes. You have a choice of royalty (in a castle)or minion (in a 400 sqft apartment). And let’s be real, royalty isn’t much a option over seas. But hey! At least the government picks up the tab on everything! If Bernie gets in then you will become one of the minion along with the rest of us just waiting for our government cheese and never striving to better our own situations again.

    P.S. Bernie sanders is a well intended man. However, let’s remember why we fought the revolutionary war. To get away from the exact thing you guys now want. Socialism and dictatorships have been around since the beginning of time. Free market was something new that this country created. If you do not like it then by all means, move to England. We will not be offended.

    1. I’m not sure what is worse about this post: The blind nationalistic narciccism in the face of hard facts (US income inequality and wealth disparity is a hell of a lot worse than in European countries with subsidized health care and education), or the distorted view of history.

  51. This blog entry is beautiful, just beautiful. As someone who thinks quantitatively about most things and has a MA in govt econ, thank you for this.

    It brings up another point, which I think nobody really talks about. Often times you hear the idea thrown around that politicians want to help ‘the middle class,’ which they often qualify as families who earn up to 250K per year. As your simple and wonderful graph clearly illustrates, a top cutoff of 250K takes in over 95% of all taxpaying families.

    How is this anything resembling an actual definition of ‘the middle class? Where I’m from, if you talk about the middle, there has to be something on either side, and it needs to be somewhat proportional on either side.

    Whether that proportional split is equal for all groups (1/3 at the bottom, 1/3 in the middle, 1/3 at the top), or big in the middle and equal on either side (0-25% at the bottom, 25-75% in the middle, and 75-100% at the top), the framing by current people seeking our vote, on both sides of the aisle, is nothing like reality. At all.

    Thank you for your post.

    1. I think you need to get a grip on reality. This just shows how bad the income inequality is in America. The top 1% control 47% of all wealth. Meanwhile the bottom 80% control 7%. The wealthiest 400 people control the same amount of wealth as the the “bottom” 150 million. This video sums it up best. https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

  52. I think it is a great gesture that you have taken the time for this, I’m glad to see someone who cares us making about effort. People should recognize this despite what the outcomes are!

  53. Math on this doesn’t make sense to me. How can 60% of the population experience something like 8000 dollar reduction while only the 5% pay 21k more on average.

  54. You stated in your post that your analysis is based on a family of four filing jointly in Medicaid expansion states. Those are pretty convenient restrictions. As of the 2015 Census, less than 19% of households in this country were in families of four, so your conclusions do not apply to most American households. Further, 19 states have not accepted the Medicaid expansion, so your conclusions apply to families of four in only 62% of the states. And you have also excluded millions of single-parent households with the “filing jointly” restriction. Your graph is therefore misleading, and your conclusion that Sanders’ plan would be “saving money for the vast majority of Americans” is unsupported at best.

    So why did you cherry pick your data? Would it not work out favorably to crunch the numbers for the population as a whole?

    1. Chris makes a great point, to which I hope the author of this article replies. It is disingenuous at best to use such a small segment of the population (family of four filing jointly in medicaid expansion state) and then claim the results apply to the “vast majority.” Only 23.5% of the total United States population is a family household of husband-wife with children. 32 percent are non-family households and 5% are unmarried couple households. And this isn’t accounting for the fact that your estimates only apply in medicaid expansion states. If you really want to push people to vote for Bernie, how about showing the numbers of single individuals living alone (roughly 25% of the population) and those in non-medicaid expansion states. Florida, Texas, and Virginia alone (all non-medicaid expansion states) account for roughly 17% of the entire population of the United States.

      1. Under Bernie’s plan, states will not have the option to refuse Medicaid expansion.

        You have to make some assumptions to keep the charts simple. A family of four is a typical assumption in this sort of discussion. If you believe that Bernies’s plan will be more costly for other family groups, let’s see you back that up.

        1. No, a family of four is NOT a typical assumption, because less than 19% of families in this country come in that configuration. That’s not typical at all. It’s cherry picking of the data to mislead readers. It’s like saying 20% of the standard five-day work week falls on Monday, therefore every work day is Monday.

          The author stated that “more than 70% of families would save money under Bernie’s plans.” If that’s the case, he shouldn’t need to make such limiting assumptions. He should be able to show a favorable analysis for 70% of the families rather than only for 19%. He can’t. So instead he showed a best case scenario instead and said it represents everyone, and lots of suckers are falling for it.

  55. Fantastic work. Thank you for putting this together, the data doesn’t lie! I’d also like to subscribe as I’m a huge fan of data AND nutrition. I think the others are looking for an email subscription box like I am – I’d be happy to help you set it up if needed, let me know! (Including my email in this comment)

  56. The problem with this analysis is that you’re using a single average healthcare premium and a single average health care expense for everyone. I appreciate that you shared the code so I can see your assumptions of annual premiums at $6408/year and the annual health expenses at $4065/year. Lots of people pay way less than 10K/year for healthcare. Thinking of my own situation I’ve had employers where I paid $500/year for premiums and most years my health expenses are under 100. That would mean I’d have to subtract nearly $10,000 off the savings calculations you made and thus this plan would have cost me.

    Like you I would be okay with paying that to have universal healthcare in the U.S. but I think you’re either being really disingenuous or just plain foolish claiming that everyone making under 200K/year will save under the Sanders plan. If you made an interactive tool where people could enter in their annual health care premiums and expenses tons of people making under 200k will find that they end up owing more under this plan. I’d rather see arguments for universal healthcare on it’s merits (lower total costs, personal security, and fairness) than on a false notion that most everyone will get something for nothing.

  57. and what would be your analysis for a retired couple … say, a pair of baby boomers now age 70, drawing social security and a modest retirement pension?

  58. Sorry for the late comment, but someone shared this post on my Facebook and I have a question: how old are the parents in this family of four? Is this the median family of four?

    Tax rates are the same no matter the age of the parents, but insurance rates are not. I’d like to see a family of graphs, to give a better understanding of the entire situation.

    What does a similar curve look like for couple who are 25? Their taxes are about the same, but their insurance rates are a lot lower. And the same for a couple who are 60: they save even more, because their insurance rates are higher. What about a single 25 year old?

    I’d also like to see the curves for people on the 25th and 75th percentiles of insurance expense.

    Averages tell a story, but it would also be useful to know how many people do worse under Bernie’s plan. If the average person does better, but 25% of people do worse, that’s a lot of angry people. Policies that produce winners also produce losers.

  59. You should show the median increases for income earners over $250,000 rather than the mean. It would be far better to indicate what the more reasonably expected increases would be for these households.

  60. I’m not buying any of this , really convenient that your numbers all point to amazingly gross amounts of savings for the tax payer , under Bernies plan , I’m having my CPA check this out , I think it falls under the ” to good to be true ” rule !! None of these proposals will ever make it out of committee ! Sanders continues to promise what he can not provide !!

  61. As a point of clarity it would ideal to have other graphs available to represent the -##% numbers for lower income families, because the caveat of this coming from government assistance programs is implicit unless your read all of your post. Many people would only take the visual at face value, and misrepresent what was actually said.

  62. You sir either a Bernie campaign person or an idiot. This socialist in total plans to spend another 16 trillion on his plans. The real money lies in the middle class any idiot with a brain knows this. The more burden you put on companies the more WE ALL PAY FOR GOODS AND SERVICES! Jimminy Christmas! You socialists are all alike. If socialism is so great why do so many people flee it to come to America?

  63. What is going to happen to employees that work for health care companies under Bernie’s plan? Will they all lose their jobs since everyone would be on government insurance?

  64. These proposals always entertain me. I consider myself a moderate. I agree with each “side” on different issues. I’m also a fan of getting to the issue. His proposal just continues to pile up the same crap both sides have accumulated for years. Surely, you guys realize if you tax those that make over 1 million at 100% (take all their money for the simpletons) you only cover 1/3 of THIS YEAR’S deficit. Can you imagine what it would take to actually operate at a surplus? Heres another fact for you. Taxes collected as a percentage of gdp have remained between 17 and 20 percent regardless of the rates at the top. It was at 90 percent in the 60s and as low as 30 percent and the percentage remained unchanged. I’ll let you figure out why. We don’t have a revenue problem in this country. We have a spending problem that is so unbelievably out of control all these proposals are jokes. It will take cutting out entire departments to fix this problem but no one will face the truth. Enjoy your healthcare while our country continues to spiral down the financial drain.

  65. Just thinking out loud here. It doesn’t appear that you’ve taken into account any potential ripple effect driven by Bernie’s policies in the form of increased prices (corporations will pass on their new burden) and an exodus of domestic companies looking for more favorable conditions on foreign shores. If that happens to the point that his programs become insolvent, where will the burden lie?
    In my eyes it has all the appearances of half of a plan, with no “Plan B”…or at least no Plan B that’s being shared, likely because it will be in the form of an assault on the middle class.

    1. That’s why we have the problem we do in America. To many liberals playing the roll of “modern” economists. Modern economists think only of what may work in the immediate situation, NEVER taking into account what the “classic” economist would, like; what are the long term effects of this plan? And does this work for only one group or the country as a whole? The results will be joining the other 24 socialist countries currently in bankruptcy and the 14 others on the brink of bankruptcy. Socialism looks wonderful though! Doesn’t it? Playing in parks all day, sun bathing, riding bikes on streets of gold and drinking the purest of waters. Then, we all go back to our government jobs after break because we and everything we think that we own are all government property????

      1. It’s snowy, beautiful, and relaxed here, with free health care, low-cost university, and the 6th-best public K-12 education system in the world. And a balanced national budget last year despite a major economic downturn. Signed, your friend, supporter, and neighbour, Canada.

  66. The main problem with this is it assumes that healthcare will cost is equal to what what medicare is willing to expend. Right now it’s subsidized by the increased prices people are paying. The total cost of medical care in the US will remain the same, or drastically increase under new legal requirements. All this shows is that Sanders plan will be insolvent in the first year.

  67. This is directed at no one in particular, but to those who haven’t actually taken the time to learn more, and to fully understand what program and policy changes Senator Sanders is proposing. There is a lot of misinformation circulating, not just about Sanders. We cannot make informed decisions based on inaccurate information.

    170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street:


    See list here:


    210 top economists are backing the plan to raise minimum wage to $15 by 2020″


    Noted economist and former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, Robert Reich explains why Bernie Sanders’s policies would cost America nothing:


    More on what Gerald Freidman says:



    Here is noted scholar Noam Chomsky’s take on the subject:


    Chomsky wraps it up by saying, “Take, say, the Bernie Sanders campaign, which I think is important, impressive. He’s doing good and courageous things. He’s organizing a lot of people. That campaign ought to be directed to sustaining a popular movement that will use the election as a kind of an incentive and then go on, and unfortunately, it’s not. When the election’s over, the movement is going to die. And that’s a serious error.

    The only thing that’s going to ever bring about any meaningful change is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don’t pay attention to the election cycle. It’s an extravaganza every four years. You have to be involved in it, so fine. We’ll be involved in it, but then we go on. If that were done, you could get major changes.”

    Due to the current function of big money in our government and who owns most of the mainstream media, what Mr. Chomsky is not aware of is this. – That is EXACTLY what Bernie Sanders political revolution is doing.


    I have heard the rhetoric and therefore, understand why people worry for example, about the effects on small business owners. According to many experts, they don’t have to worry. They will be better off as well. I urge you all to educate yourself about Senator Sanders platform. Until you do, how can you make an informed opinion on his proposed policies? After you learn what he is proposing, read what knowledgeable experts say about these proposals. IMHO, it is an embarrassment – no, a disgrace that with so much at stake and in the most important election of our lifetime, possibly in the history of our country, while sitting in front of their computers, so many people would rather repeat unsubstantiated rhetoric, or bury the heads in the sand and play Candy Crush Saga or whatever is currently popular. This is our future and the future of our children and grandchildren at stake. Don’t we all owe it to our nation, to our forefathers, and to all of the veterans who have fought and died or been injured to give us the privilege of choosing our leader to do it wisely, based on facts?

    If you come to the conclusion that Sanders’s platform is a sound one that you can get behind but think it but think there’s no way they could become reality, this will explain why and how it can:


    I have offered links to some of the sources that helped me form my opinion about who I plan to vote for. For those who support other candidates, what would your candidate do about the important issues that he is addressing? These issues are not new, yet if not for Bernie Sanders, we still wouldn’t be talking about them today. And unless we do something now, it will only get worse. Do any other candidates have plans to address these important issues that impact all American families? Do their proposed policies put the American people first or put the interests of their rich (often corporate) donors first?

    One more thing to consider… If you take the time to listen to some of Senator Sanders’ speeches, pay careful attention and then please share with me if you find any of them where he makes political promises. The is only one promise that he has made, and he will keep that promise, whether he is elected or not, is that he will do everything in his power and will not give up until the Citizens United ruling is overturned.

    Other than that, he gives us his opinion about what we need to do or says that we need to have a conversation about a particular issue. Then he encourages all Americans to inform themselves about the issues and to become and remain and active participant in our democracy. I mean, let’s be honest, we can sit around and blame Democrats or Republicans, or this or that elected official, but in reality, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the situation we find ourselves in today. We either voted them in or stayed home and did nothing.

    1. Why are there currently 24 bankrupt socialist countries and 14 more on the brink of bankruptcy? Why do the people of Denmark pay 80% tax rates? Meaning 80% of Everyone of your given days is given over to the government. Think about it. Why does Britain have a 45% tax rate(all hidden taxes and goods and services taxes are excluded) and have to raise their already insane 17.5% sales tax rate up to 20%? Oh wait, I know the answer to that question. It’s to help try and pay for debt. Taxes will continue to rise. Socialism clearly does NOT work. Last question. Why does America recieve over 1,000,000 immigrants each year? We far surpass any other country on new immigrants, especially seeing that about 99.9% of those people are fleeing socialism and dictatorships. So, why?

    2. FYI– 170 of the “top” economists? Please tell me what ‘top’ means if 170 people can be said to claim that descriptor.

      That’s like 5000 of the ‘top’ football players– which would include high school players.

  68. “Flat rate of 2.2% on all income. An additional 6.2% payroll tax is also collected from employers, but is not reflected in this analysis as it is not a direct factor in family incomes.”

    No where have I seen how this effects self-employed (estimated at 6.6% of population). Does that mean I would pay 8.2% (as in paying both sides of Social Security as employee and employer)???

  69. Not sure if I agree with your math or statistics. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation as cited in the Bloomberg Business article. The average tax rate is much less of the Median Income family than you show. Their statement is that that average is effectively less than 5%. Which would be $3,250. So I doubt that Sen. Sanders program would save them $8K+. In fact, many sources have shown that to pay for all of the things that Sen. Sanders believes should be free. We could tax the top 1% of tax payers at 100% and still add huge debt to the country. That assumes that people in the top 1% stay in the US and/or continue to earn at that level (since there is no reason to, why work the hours and make the sacrifices).

    1. Indeed. I’ve already demonstrated that our CURRENT level of spending cannot be fully funded even with a 100% tax on those with incomes over 250k. I’m not talking about a marginal tax of 100% on 250k plus incomes. No, I’m talking about taking every person who filed a tax return showing over 250k income and confiscating 100% of every cent they earned that year.

      Even that draconian measure cannot fund just our *current* level of spending.


      1. Key takeaway– confiscating 100% of all income from those that made more than $1m would fund the federal government for 72 days. At least, at the time the research was conducted this was the case. And that’s just feds– what about state and local?

        And confiscating every cent of annual income from those who made over $200k would only fund the federal government for six months.

        Still think you can tax your way to Utopia? There’s just not enough rich income people to go around.

  70. If 95% of the population is saving around $8,000 per year and 5% of the population is paying $21,000 more I don’t thing the math works at all. The area under the curve for savings has to be matched with an equal area under the curve for those that pay more. There is no logic behind the argument. 95 x 8 = 760. 5 x 21 = 105. 105-760 = (655) in new debt. You can add the zeros yourself.

    1. “Information is limited regrading the incomes of wealthy families, so all that can be presented is that the top 4% of families have an average income of $402,000.”

      Once the incomes get into the tens of millions, the tax increases are wildly different.

  71. Hey all, I am from Europe and i’ve been reading some of your comments. I enjoy universal healthcare resulting in paying less than 200€ a year on healthcare/pharmaceuticals/etc. Everything is in €, but $=€ i think currently…

    For the non-believiers in terms of quality: no healthcare ranking puts us behind the US for decades now… Us ranks 37 on WHO ranking compared to france , italy, spain, greece, belgium, the uk etc are all in the top 20 with universal healthcare systems.

    For those who think doctors will get paid badly, our stats tell us depending on what type of doctor and how hard they work, doctors earn 250-750k a year. My parents are both doctors and I can confirm that doctors are still amongst the wealthiest in our society…

    For those who think free college get you bad doctors. Our entire education system from kindergarten to college and specialty schools are free (as long as you pass exams) and our doctors work crazy hard during residency (my brother is currently in his 12th year so i know) as well but dont have huge debt burdens… Well no burden at all actually. And yes in university rankings we rank are somewhere in 50th place, but being behind 49 institutions that have a lot more money to spend on non-educational stuff to rank them higher is no shame…

    And for those who think i pay a lot more taxes. We have an income tax of 50% for all income above 40k + companies pay a fixed social contribution per employee. However, i get free healthcare, free education, a state pension of 34k€ a year, cheap public transport, 20 vacation days a year ( + another 10 from my employer), if i lose my job i get an unemployment wage up to 30k (matched to your wage when fired, but max 30k) for the first 3 years, etc.+ most people manage to lower their real income tax% to around 40% using deductions + almost everyone drives company cars (because taxes aim to discourage car ownership) + rents are much lower here ( above 1k for rent is scarce, most are able to buy something when arriving to those figures + for 1k you have huge(120m2 appartement 200m2 house) and modern-day house/appartment except in major city centres were you would not pay more than 2k). Not to mentiin that we have almost no monopolies which results in lower energy/mobile/cable costs than what i have heard from american friends…

    All combined i prefer our system and i consider myself a conservative, not a socialist…

  72. Can you show me ONE country that has the social programs he claims are possible where the 25th to 95th percentiles pay taxes at a rate of 50% (probably far greater) tax rate vs. a ~20% tax rate will cost you far more than you are ever likely to benefit.
    Of course that is the REAL siren song that Mr. Sanders sings: the promise that you will not have to work hard at advancing yourself to live in relative comfort. Or at least equal mediocrity.

  73. Is there something Bernie is not saying or does he not understand Medicare or what. It sounds as though he will be adding taxes to everyone and to companies, to pay for expanded Medicare. Medicare for hospitals (Part A) is paid for by the government, but Medicare Part B, which covers doctor visits, is currently paid for by enrollees (about $1440 currently and goes up every year)… Neither covers all of your health care costs – They cover about 80% – So if you have a bill for $10,000, you are still out of pocket for about $2000. Is he talking about something totally different, like Medicaid? Is he playing fast and loose with the truth? Is he planning on paying the premiums for enrollees or raising more taxes to pay them? Or, does he just not know anything about these programs?

    1. It’s called Medicare-for-all as shorthand, but it’s universal, single-payer healthcare. Only the government pays, and they pay all of it. To get the full picture you can simply check on the long-established systems in other countries, or check out the website of Physicians for a National Health Program (all U.S. doctors).

  74. Question, does this analysis factor in the possible the increase in demand for the goods and services that will be promised under the sanders plan? For instance, healthcare, it would it be reasonable to assume that as access is provided to more and more people the price will increase? More doctors to hire, hospitals to build? Or college for all? Would an increase in the number of individuals seeking education increase the amount for education and all of its services supplied causing an increase in price?

  75. It wont work ,why you ask because the BIG Government will steal all the tax money and wont be able to pay for the programs and then they will say well sorry but we need to raise taxes to pay for that or borrow the money have people learned nothing are you really so stupid ?

  76. Average household of 4. Always a household of 4. US Census estimates that in 2014 of the 117+million households, 27.8% were ‘Householder living alone’. So, address your title of the article: “Just How Much Would Bernie Sanders Tax Me?” Single, not married, no children.

  77. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer

    The payroll tax will inordinately hit small businesses and reduce economic competitive pressures. His estimates of savings are wildly optimistic and assume that Medicare for All can continue paying lesser rates without any impact on availability.

    And you’ve glossed over many of the tax costs themselves. The transactional tax is not something that “just rich folks” have to worry about. Do you have a 401k? Congratulations, you’ll earn about 0.25% less annually. If you have 70K invested for 35 years, that comes out to a reduction of about 100K in your final retirement account. Are you a retiree or know one? Need to sell bonds or withdraw from your fund? Here’s a transaction tax to make your retirement just a little bit harder.

    What about the capital gains taxes? You’re right that those are largely rich people taxes; however, anyone who sells a home is subject to capital gains. That will hit millions of middle class Americans and place some sticker shock on them when they file their taxes after a sale. Particularly if the one-time sale bumps them into a higher income bracket and eats away a higher marginal share of that sale price.

    And that doesn’t even cover the level of optimism that Sanders presents as the actual cost of the program.

  78. The obvious TRUTH that this article leaves out is the “tax” that Americans pay when those who are in the top 4%, you know- those who own the businesses and services that the rest of us pay for, adjust the cost of their services and products to offset the increase in THEIR taxes. If Mr Business owner making $250,000 gets taxed an additional $21,000/yr, he simply charges more for his services that the bottom 94% are paying for. Now, here is where it gets REAL bad. Those at or below the poverty level, the ones on social services, are ALSO now paying more for their products and services, therefore their dollars don’t stretch as far as they did before, SO, they cry for more assistance from the government- and they get it, and in turn taxes increase again. The ones REALLY hurt by all of this are the middle class- the ones who do not receive assistance and who cannot simply increase the cost of their goods and services to offset the increase in taxes. And some, who were barely above the poverty level, now fall into the poverty level- they are now on assistance, which costs MORE money so the government again raises taxes to pay for the additional citizens on assistance and the vicious cycle continues. Socialism NEVER works as history has proven over and over again.

  79. Yes Bernie Sanders plan will save you money just like Obamacare saved you money. OK so if Obamacare was so great ( I do believe Bernie voted for it) and was gonna save so much money. Then why is Bernie’s health care plan even being used as a talking point in the election? We already have a Wonderful health care plan that Bernie himself voted for.

    1. Because Obamacare didn’t go far enough, and single-payer universal health care will save much more money by eliminating health insurance companies.

  80. This is all so cute. Make a plan on the assumption that the top 1% will suddenly stop using Tax Lawyers to prevent them from having to pay taxes! Good luck with that.

    1. Of course it sounds affordable to you; you aren’t paying the increase, you are just trying to reap the benefits from those who DO pay for it.

  81. Since most of us don’t pay any significant healthcare costs (except for insurance), there won’t be any savings at all. Only our taxes will be increased to pay for Socialist professors to indoctrinate our muddle-headed, publicly educated children to not learn to work for anything.

  82. Okay, I’m just going to leave this here to be lost amid the rest of the comments, but this is my take. So often people accuse support of socialism with entitlement, as though supporters are saying, “I am entitled to the benefits of your labor.”

    I’ll be very clear. I am a server a steakhouse in a smallish midwestern town. I work mostly lunch shifts. Most of my tips are very definitely not 20%. I really do not make very much money. Forty dollars is a lot to me. Try to understand this. Also understand that I’m not really hurting financially because I’ve figured out how to make my situation work for me (in several different ways as my situation changes). Now: every shift I tip out the bussers and the hostesses and, when we have them, the food runners. Yes, I do have to do it. I have no choice in the matter, in a sense, but my personal sense of generosity makes resenting it, for the most part, foreign to me.

    This is precisely where I am coming from. What you are calling entitlement — as well as I could fit it into the analogy, asking the manager to set up a system in which everyone automatically tips out the busser, who makes less you — is not about the busser’s stealing money from me. It’s about my manager expecting that I have enough of a sense of fairness and generosity to understand and to be entirely okay with the arrangement.

    If someone told me they had a plan in which I could help those less fortunate than I am — and I know there are quite a lot of people much less fortunate than I am — I would be 100% on board. It’s only right. It’s only fair. I don’t care if you want to kick and scream and whine. I am completely on board with Bernie because I believe he will give me an opportunity to contribute, to make this world a better place, even if that contribution is only my vote and the small amount of money I’ve contributed and will continue to contribute to his campaign over time.

    One more thing. If I have learned anything in my time on Earth it is that no one is entitled to anything. It is not possible to truly be deserving of anything. That’s all made up, all a part of the game. So, to my ears, the people who complain about the possibility of having their money go to help someone else are the entitled ones, absolutely. You never did anything to deserve what you own. Nor have I. Yet we have something anyway. Somewhere, somehow, we’ve been given a gift.

    That’s what this is about.

    1. So, you believe you’ve never done anything to deserve your paycheck, the car you own, the house you rent or have a mortgage on? Well, to each his own, I guess.

  83. i think this would be a better argument for a flat tax of say 15%. why dont you folks complaining about not having money left over and figure out how much more money you would have with a flat tax, instead of the 39% or so we pay now!

    as far as flipping burgers for $15 and free college, your going then have people flipping burgers wanting $20+ an hour because they have a degree! how much is that burger going to cost you then!

    also if everyone has a degree, it lowers the importance of having one! it will make it just another piece of paper!

    the thing about paying for your degree is that it show you wanted something reall bad and was willing to work for it. countries that have free college, most of the people go there for the easy stuff like arts and humanities, not engineering etc.

    i read a good article from one of those countries and they are over run with arts majors and have a real shortage for skilled degree’s like engineering, or physics! shy because those need more effort on the students and the students getting free college wants is free education.

    Then you have the career students in that country that keep going to different colleges to get different degrees because they cant find a job they can picture themselves in that is fulfilling to them!

    I agree college should be more affordable but not free. why it has gone up and i have read a lot of reports about it, is because government got involved and raised the amounts for the grants etc. so the colleges raised their tuition. the fat cats at the schools make more money while teachers are getting about the same pay!

    1. 90% of the highest paid federal employees are college football coaches. Should tell you something about what the gov’t actually finds as priority.

  84. Being able to afford it does not mean you are qualified for it. So how do we now handle the acceptance policies? Should every kid regardless of mental capacity be accepted to every college for any degree they want? Reality says no, and that that would be asinine thinking. Is every college now going to be at the same prestige? Now we only have one type of college? If not, then why would it make sense for those tuitions to be the same? It doesn’t and it wouldn’t be, but everyone would pay the same whether you are getting a prestigious, highly intensive degree or an easy, light load, worthless human sciences degree. So do the people that get lesser degrees get some of their tax dollars back since they didn’t utilize everything they paid for all those years? Are we going to simply insist that children that would otherwise be unqualified should go get useless degrees to only find themselves out of college and no way to apply what they learned? And if we have kids that choose to not go to college, do the parent’s get their tax dollars back since they paid into a system that did not benefit them? Are the kids that got the useless degrees (by choice) going to complain when the kids that did get good degrees are making more money than them? I mean, it was their choice what to study but the free college argument is that consequences of our personal choices are the responsibility of the rest of society, so now just because I made the choice to take easy classes, I should still be able to make just as much money as the ‘more entitled smart students, because that is only fair and it’s not my fault that I made these choices that will forever affect my life, it was society that made me make those choices. to I bring up these points because making college free to all does not equalize anyone. It would only equalize if every job regardless of career paid the exact same, but then we sure aren’t going to have a lot of doctors or engineers since those are intensive programs and careers but no extra benefits to being a receptionist. In fact, what incentive is there to work at all now because it is the RIGHT of every American to get free college, healthcare, and equal pay regardless of the personal choices we made? If I remember correctly, the Consitution states that you have the right to pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness. The 9th Amendment also clearly states that it is NOT the responsibility of the Federal gov’t to provide college tuition to the citizens.

  85. Anyone who quotes Sweden as having a successful free college program needs to understand that my city alone has 3 times as many people living in it than the entirety of Sweden. There are 14 universities in Sweden. There are 2,618 in America. Implementing socialist policies like free college can and often does work on such small scales, but rarely on large scales like this, the math just doesn’t add up and too many people with different paths (all the people who choose to not go to college will all lose money for paying into a system that will not benefit them). Think about the ACA, works in Massachusetts, doesn’t work in America. Mitt Romney even said this during his run, and it has been proven. Free college should be left to states, and the 9th Amendment actually clearly defines this as a State issue. It would be much more efficient and much more likely to succeed state by state than by sweeping federal reform.

  86. If Bernie was smart he would make free college a state issue. It would actually make both left and right happy. the 9th amendment clearly defines this as a state issue anyway, and it would be much more likely to succeed on smaller scales (socialist policies just don’t work on large scales).

  87. Democrats: “Rich people telling poor people they are poor because those rich Republicans are keeping them down”

    This strategy has been very successful at getting votes from the ignorant for hundreds of years.

    Capitalism is very messy but it survives in spite of the ‘hive mentality’ from the left.

  88. BULL.

    The Tax Policy Center, which conducted the analysis, found that under a Sanders’ administration:

    The total amount of federal taxes collected would increase by $15.3 trillion over the next decade;
    The top 0.1% of earners would be taxed an average federal rate of 63.7% in 2017 – up from 34.2% in 2016; and
    The middle 20% of American households would see their taxes go up $4,692 in 2017 – resulting in a net loss of 8.5% of their after-tax income.

  89. so you remove approximately 600 billion (75 % of approximately 100 million families) and replace it with 107 billion (5 % of 100 million families paying 21560 more), and you have plenty of money for all the free programs. I take it you like common core math?

  90. Hey you know what else would put a lot more money back in peoples’ pockets? People being able to keep their entire paycheck. So, how about advocating eliminating the income tax altogether?

    It seems a heck of a lot more fair than taking other people’s money just cause they have more.

    There are some upsides to that as well, like people spending that extra money at local shops, in their local communities, instead of sending to a massive black hole called the Federal Govt.

    Considering the govt generates $3.7 trillion in tax revenue, I’d say it profits more than any corporation or rich person in the entire world. Also, the gov already spends 1 trillion of that money on healthcare, and the entire government, including states, spends about $600 billion each year on education. So, why do people think raising taxes and throwing more money at healthcare and education is going to make things better??

    Oh by the way, you left out substantial tax costs to taxpayers in your ‘chart’. You see, when the Bernie, thru the authoritarian power of the government, raises taxes against businesses and wealthy people, then the first thing those businesses and wealthy people do is raise the price of their service or goods to cover the tax increase.

    That’s right, raise taxes against a business, the business passes that tax to the consumer, and that means the consumer is paying the tax at the end of the day. So, basically a tax against a business, is really just another tax increase against the citizen.

    Then of course, an increase in price means an increase in sales tax at the register as well… so there’s more taxes for the citizen. What happens when prices go up? We call that inflation.

    What’s the consequence of inflation? it means that peoples’ purchasing power just dropped, and pretty soon they will be demanding wage hikes, which results in layoffs and more increased prices.

    Just trying to put things in perspective.. you know that little thing called ‘reality’.

  91. I’m a teacher at a public high school in San Francisco, with a wife and an 11 year old child. It’s becoming harder and harder to put money away to save for college, and I still have over $50K in student loan debt (yes I have applied and been turned down for loan forgiveness being a teacher). I like what I see with Bernie’s plan.

  92. I have a question that is not addressed anywhere I look. Will this medicare plan for all apply to everyone? or like the ACA, will there be certain special people like politicians do not have to participate. I am not happy when the president or another democrat politician tells me how good the ACA is but I don’t have to participate because it not intended for me. I would expect Bernie to be the first sign-up, then VP, and on down. Anything less is dishonest as shown by the ACA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to top