“Medicare For All” is more appealing when you hide the enormous tax increase

According to the Washington Post, the “dam is breaking on Democrats’ embrace of single-payer” for healthcare as a fourth member of Congress co-sponsored Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for all” bill. But the Post makes no mention of the cost for this bill.

Why, you ask, would they only discuss the benefits to be received without mentioning the cost? Hmm…

Heading over to Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All website, one finds that the cost is estimated to be $1,380,000,000,000. That’s $1.38 trillion.

Bernie Sanders then lists seven ways to raise the required revenue–new taxes, tax increases, and closing loopholes. The largest source of revenue would be a “6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers,” in other words a 6.2% tax on income to be paid by employers, as if employers will just eat the tax increase without passing it on to employees or customers. On top of this is a “2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households,” i.e., a 2.2% tax increase.

Given that all but one of these additional sources of revenue involves directly or indirectly a tax on income, lets just look at the tax increase in aggregate. This year, the federal government is expected to generate revenue of $3.46 trillion. A $1.38 trillion tax increase is the equivalent of all tax rates rising by 40% (40 percent, not 40 percentage points). In other words, social security taxes would have to rise from 6.2% to 8.7%. The lowest tax bracket would have to jump from 10% to 14%. The 25% tax bracket, in which most American probably reside, would need to leap to 35%. And the top tax bracket would have to go from 39.6% to 55.4%.

Bernie Sanders wants to pay for his Medicare For All by taxing the rich. He raises the top tax bracket from 39.6% to 52%, but only on those earning over $10 million. Other high-income people see smaller increases in their income taxes.

How do lower-income earners fare in his proposal? Probably even worse than their high-income counterparts. Although Bernie Sanders tries to hide it by calling one new tax a “6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers” and another a “2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households,” these are, in effect, tax increases of 6.2% and 2.2%, the first to be paid by the employer, who will surely pass all or most of the cost along, and the second to be paid by the earner. If one looks at one’s income tax rate as the total of his income taxes plus social security taxes plus medicare taxes, the lowest tax bracket will go from a current 25.3% to 33.7%, a 33% increase. That may not be the portion paid by the individual, but it’s the amount the government takes and it is the amount paid by earner either directly through his taxes or indirectly through lower wages or highest consumer prices.

The Medicare For All website also claims that a typical family earning $50,000 would save $5,800 in healthcare spending. He does not mention that the new taxes of 2.2% and 6.2% total $4,200. So the saving as much smaller. But the website also points out people currently receive “tax breaks that subsidize health care” to the tune of $310 billion. These would be eliminated under the plan. The website does not say much does a typical family earning $50,000 receive in these “tax breaks.” I wonder why. Needless to say, that $5,800 in savings all but disappears when one accounts for the tax increases and the removal of tax breaks.

Now it’s clear why the Washington Post does not mention the cost of this “Medicare For All” bill. It’s also clear why the Medicare For All website gives a clear picture of how much a typical family saves but not how much it will cost them.

It’s much easier to give away goodies when people think they are free or someone else is paying for them rather than tell them how much it will cost them. If politicians were required to disclose the costs in addition to the benefits (much like a drug advertisement is required to reveal the side-effects), socialist proposals like Medicare For All would surely gather less support than when everything appears to be free.

Advertisements

3 responses to ““Medicare For All” is more appealing when you hide the enormous tax increase

  1. Same stuff different day!

    When you look at the real costs not covered by anyone: The failure of controlled cost health care. The service will be weaponized to some degree as was EPA, IRS, HLS, EDA, HUD, in fact all of the government was weaponized against the people under Obama! For years I pointed out that the basics of business are not being taught to the whole of society. So when you say tax the rich the general public does not know what that means. Of course Sanders is for taxing anyone doing anything creative! Again something he doesn’t understand he does spend campaign cash well. A 600,0000 vacation home on the lake and a 200,000 sports car! We are in search of two legal systems one for the people and one for Democrats. And perhaps a few republicans.

    Socialist ideology works in the early days as a or if the society has a reservoir of capital. Sooner or later that fails. Then you get the next actors the Oligarchs in socialised countries these are mob guys gone legit well sort of! The government protects them and these Oligarchs then move the government to a totalitarian model to assure the outcome!

    Combine all of that with the taxes that will not be enough. As more and more people demand abatements and subsidies! The Tea Party worked hard to alter the National Flood Insurance program such that everyone paid a real insurance amount not the low cost congress granted one. The first year the insurance went from a few hundred to $20,000 and we have 30,000 home that repeat every time the water rises. and the cost of those 30K are now at $5.5 billion with the total debt of the program at $25 billion and rising with the last two storms! So the taxes will not be enough even if doubled. Democrat hoped for open Borders = 50 million new citizens. All voting for this largess. We had by my count some 7 to 25 million fraudulent voters in last Nov. Election!

    The real question is how do we get the truth out? We should for a group of folks to publish a FB page! Raise some money to build up the readership and then go live on the FB live where there is money to earn.

    By my self last month I was in the top 2% of all posters on FB! We have to address this as congress will not and the candidates will not!

    EB

    On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Michael E. Newton wrote:

    > Michael E. Newton posted: “According to the Washington Post, the “dam is > breaking on Democrats’ embrace of single-payer” for healthcare as a fourth > member of Congress co-sponsored Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for all” bill. > But the Post makes no mention of the cost for this bill. Wh” >

  2. Figure out how to post this on my pages and groups I can get you more coverage!

    eb

  3. What? I thought it was all free, like Obama phones.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s