Vox’s new presidential tax calculator - 2016 version

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I guess I'm confused.

Why does the left want to lose more of their money? Why do they want to pay higher taxes?

Paying more in taxes, and paying more in income are not the same thing. If you spend $3000 on healthcare under Sanders in taxes but you're paying $5000 out of pocket now you end up with $2000 more in your pocket despite your taxes going up by $3000.

In regards to healthcare, apparently "Affordable" isn't the same thing as "affordable" in virtually every other usage of the word. Sorry, but the American voters need to take the party responsible for that national disgrace to task by holding ANY claim they make in regards to economic policies in the highest degree of contempt and circumspection.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I absolutely agree! There is no such thing as trickle down economics, and there is literally zero evidence that paying protection money to the corporate / banking class improves the economy for anyone but themselves.

Spot on!

a reply to: 0zzymand0s
Rather interesting.

Trump's entire fiscal policy is about protecting that class.

a reply to: ketsuko

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

Wut. Ever.
Nice, but lame, try.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I guess I'm confused.

Why does the left want to lose more of their money? Why do they want to pay higher taxes?

Paying more in taxes, and paying more in income are not the same thing. If you spend $3000 on healthcare under Sanders in taxes but you're paying $5000 out of pocket now you end up with $2000 more in your pocket despite your taxes going up by $3000.

In regards to healthcare, apparently "Affordable" isn't the same thing as "affordable" in virtually every other usage of the word. Sorry, but the American voters need to take the party responsible for that national disgrace to task by holding ANY claim they make in regards to economic policies in the highest degree of contempt and circumspection.

Well that won't happen. In fact, people are so frustrated about the "Affordable" they received when they actually wanted "affordable", they are willing to double down and ask for more "affordable" when in reality they will only get more "Affordable".

You know, kind of like an addicted gambler, pumping money into the machine in order to recover the money they lost....while still losing the current coins deposited. They're addicted to the possibility of an outcome while receiving instead a very different reality. One step forward, two steps back! It truly is a sickness.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Vox is ridiculous:

In a recent article, “46 Times Vox Totally F****d Up A Story,” Kevin Draper of Deadspin chronicled major corrections.

"What makes Vox unique is not their errors, but the magnitude of those errors,” Mr. Draper wrote.

Some of the foul-ups included reporting on a nonexistent bridge between Israel and Gaza, erroneously stating that the 2014 winter solstice would be the longest night in history (1912 was the year) and miscalculating basic mathematical formulae.

Fail, fail, and fail.

“I don’t know what the solution to Vox’s problem is. Maybe it’s just not possible to have 20-somethings write interestingly and accurately about hard news at the Internet’s pace,” Mr. Draper said.

Others found mistakes based on the acknowledged liberal bias of Mr. Klein. Even though John Sexton of Breitbart.com praised the Deadspin list, he noted, “The only problem with Deadspin’s list is that it obviously overlooks some mistakes that didn’t get formal corrections [or any correction at all].”

Twitchy.com, headed by Michele Malkin, continually pokes fun at Vox. “[W]e get a kick out of the error prone ‘Voxsplainers’ at Vox.com

It is spin.
Vox needs to take serious look at how it ‘reinvents’ journalism
Don't be a sucker.


Or a troll.
Check and double-check the reliability of your sources. Do you know how to do that?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
In regards to healthcare, apparently "Affordable" isn't the same thing as "affordable" in virtually every other usage of the word. Sorry, but the American voters need to take the party responsible for that national disgrace to task by holding ANY claim they make in regards to economic policies in the highest degree of contempt and circumspection.

Arguments like this make it sound like you're more against the naming of the bill than the implementation. That said, Sanders is the only candidate on a ballot right now that has actually put forward a viable plan to move away from the ACA.

I'm not going to get involved in the party politics of it, as you well know the Democrats passed it but the Republicans also negotiated it into what it is, and then spent 8 years trying to repeal it rather than improve it. They're just as responsible and since passing it was a congressional thing, most of us aren't in a position to vote for/against any key people involved in it's creation or passing.

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: 0zzymand0s
Rather interesting.

Trump's entire fiscal policy is about protecting that class.

Exactly.

The wealthiest get the biggest cuts, meanwhile we "little people" are supposed to be distracted by the cuts promised on our taxes.

"Oh! Look! Lower taxes! WOW! OMFG! My taxes went down like 5%!"

Meanwhile the richest people are LAUGHING and MAKING FUN of us for being distracted while they walk away with tax cuts twice a large.

They're the ones benefiting the most from this, not the average American.

And time and time again it's been shown that throwing money at existing wealthy people does NOT make the middle class stronger.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Why don't I keep more of the money I earn and spend it how I decide I like and get more bang for it that way? Why do you keep assuming that the government spending is the "bang for my buck" I both want and need?

a reply to: eriktheawful

Begs the question of why they hate marriage so much doesn't it?

originally posted by: 200Plus
Wanting to keep want you earn isn't "fair", it's greedy.

...are you serious? You know there's a reason it's called 'earning' right?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Why don't I keep more of the money I earn and spend it how I decide I like and get more bang for it that way? Why do you keep assuming that the government spending is the "bang for my buck" I both want and need?

Economies of scale.

A relatively inefficient government run program will still net you gains far in excess of what the most judicious individual could ever hope to obtain.

a reply to: StoutBroux

It does, but the amount you pay out of paycheck for employer coverage is only a small part of the actual premium. The employer covers the rest. If you have a good employer policy, which we do, then what you pay out of paycheck still works out to be less than what Bernie will take in taxes.

And if Bernie gets his wish, there is NO guarantee that the employer contribution to the employee's health care plan (which you never see in your paycheck) would be given to your salary as a raise to compensate for the employer no longer having to pay for your health care as part of your employment compensation.

So I am basically saying that if you total up what we pay in premium now per year, it we would be losing under Bernie unless the employer part of the coverage were added as an immediate raise which it almost certainly would not be.

a reply to: peck420

Oh? How am I netting any gains from any of the welfare programs for example. We make too much to qualify even though we pay for all of them.

And you are assuming that the government would run the programs in a manner that would be satisfactory and make people happy.

I am looking at the current state of public education and thinking this is highly unlikely.

a reply to: ketsuko

You know, none of the things you take for granted would be here or be possible if everyone just retreated into their own little worlds and kept to themselves and did what their ego's wanted.

Can you afford to build new bridges, roads, hospitals, fire stations, aircraft carriers? Okay -- then fine, figure out a way to somehow contribute what you deem "fair" to government spending and only use that same percentage of those services as you are willing to pay.

a reply to: ketsuko

You gain from welfare because the society isn't full of starving people laying dead in the street. Social safety nets benefit even the .01% of the population. It decreases crime as well. And contrary to what Fox and your conservative echo chambers tell you, MOST people on assistance work in some capacity and the levels of fraud are overly exaggerated in order to spin this "moocher" and "taker" mentality.

I love how conservatives see themselves in a higher tax bracket and think they're wealthier than they are.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Oh? How am I netting any gains from any of the welfare programs for example. We make too much to qualify even though we pay for all of them.

Did you account for the added security costs taking welfare away would entail. Nor would you be able to cover the increased food costs from the rapid and massive increases in theft that would occur.

And you are assuming that the government would run the programs in a manner that would be satisfactory and make people happy.

Nope. I am assuming that the government is running the program inefficiently, which is why I specifically stated that the government run program would be relatively inefficient.

There is no level of efficiency that would over come the difference in scale between an individual and a party representing 300+ million persons.

I am looking at the current state of public education and thinking this is highly unlikely.

Many, much more socialized, nations don't seem to be experiencing the same issue...just a thought.

Why are we even arguing over this misleading calculator?

I've shown that unless you make over $250,000 a year, you're taxes won't change.

And if you DO happen to make more than $250,000 a year? Your taxes will go up by only 4%.

The calculator is a LIE, it is misleading, and I am ashamed at so many people being willfully ignorant and denying ignorance of that fact because they like "their team".

We're in dangerous waters these days -- as US politics has now become a team sport, and people will bandwagon and ride that ship even if its on fire and sinking instead of using common sense.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Being a team sport is still better than being a blood sport, though it's moving in that direction.

a reply to: Aazadan

I don't care if they name it Super Happy Fun Bill, if it lays the responsibility for covering the asses of a bunch of total stranger onto Americans simply because they enjoy gainful employment and have been personally responsible, it's a pile of crap and I will NEVER capitulate to it.