** 9% of Sanders supporters aren't willing to raise their tax obligations for universal healthcare - Polidicks

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/eq0o52M.png[/IMG] [Quote]ernie Sanders says his platform makes financial sense for most Americans. For example, his campaign says Sanders's single-payer health care system would save an average family of four almost $6,000 per year. But in order to pay for his proposed programs, Sanders needs to increase taxes on virtually everyone in America. So if you're a voter, the question is simple: Are you willing to pay more taxes for his proposals, like nationalized health care and free public college tuition? How much more? When we polled voters, we found most Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for his biggest proposals. That's well short of how much more the average taxpayer would pay under his tax plan.[/quote] [url]http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution[/url] I was curious to see what Facepunch had to say to this. I know it's Vox, but thought it'd be worth a post anyway.

What idiot wouldn't pay a few extra bucks a month for health care and would rather be $5000 in the hole if they break their arm.

What? Its only nine percent versus the much higher numbers on the upper side of the spectrum compared to other candidates. This is like...the most asspulled thing I've ever seen. Anal prolapse doesn't cover this.

I'd like to see a comparison between wage of the "supporters" and the amount they say they'd like to pay, as far as I'm aware the source polls don't offer such a comparison. IE: The sanders supporters could not have as much to offer up as, say, a trump supporter.

Isn't that the entire point though, as Bernie supporters support universal healthcare and therefore lower insurance, hence they'd want to pay their fairer but knowledgeably less taxes.

For the vast majority of the country, seeing our taxes go up by a few percent to cover a universal healthcare plan would still cost us substantially less out of pocket each month than a decent mid-range health insurance policy. At a median policy cost of $250/month for my health insurance, I would have to pay an additional 12.5% income tax, as opposed to no raise at all with Sanders plan, since his mild tax hikes primarily effect the rich. That said, I would happily pay a higher percentage of my income towards taxes if it guaranteed universal healthcare for myself and everybody else. Honestly, the biggest fuckin' problem with this poll is that it isn't based on percentage of income, but rather a flat amount, which is incredibly disingenuous. [editline]/[/editline] Nevermind, I see here that you can view the poll by percentage of income, and it honestly proves my damn point lol. 92% of his supporters are willing to pay a higher percentage of their income for guaranteed healthcare coverage, with the lowest bracket above "no additional taxes" still being 2% higher than Sanders highest proposed tax bracket hike.

It amazes me sometimes how people view healthcare and insurance. I've got to go on private single payer health insurance this October, and I'm looking at around $200 a month. I'd gladly pay that same in taxes to the government to get the same service. So many people seem to think that their health insurance from their work is 'free' somehow, even though most pay a high pre-tax premium for it. My dad works at a hospital, and for three people on his plan he pays $11,000 a year of his pre-taxed income. Also, I couldn't imagine not having health insurance, even as an extremely healthy 25 year old, because you can't predict an accident.

How is "Most bernie sanders voters" only 9%? how does this make any sense?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50138731] Honestly, the biggest fuckin' problem with this poll is that it isn't based on percentage of income, but rather a flat amount, which is incredibly disingenuous. (Edit: nevermind, I see you can view the poll by percentage of income).[/QUOTE] There's a tab for percentage of income on the chart. According to that ~20% would be willing to pay over 15% and ~80% would not.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138744]There's a tab for percentage of income on the chart. According to that ~20% would be willing to pay over 15%.[/QUOTE] Yeah, noticed that shortly after posting, and it goes to prove my point. 92% of his supporters would be willing to see an income tax hike to cover universal healthcare. That's, uh, pretty darn substantial.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138744]There's a tab for percentage of income on the chart. According to that ~20% would be willing to pay over 15% and ~80% would not.[/QUOTE] Even then it seems most people are willing to pay. 5% of most peoples taxes is probably enough to pay for it, particularly when you consider most people voting for that are probably low income and that's all theyd be paying any way.

Did they bank on no one actually looking at the graph or something? It literally says the exact opposite thing of what the article claims it says.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50138765]Even then it seems most people are willing to pay. 5% of most peoples taxes is probably enough to pay for it, particularly when you consider most people voting for that are probably low income and that's all theyd be paying any way.[/QUOTE] It's an interesting dilemma when the majority of people can force the minority to pay for stuff. Once that happens the only thing stopping a total gouging of the minority is the good nature of the majority.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138835]It's an interesting dilemma when the majority of people can force the minority to pay for stuff. Even IF you strongly agree that universal single payer healthcare is the best possible choice for society, it still seems like everyone involved should have even a little bit of investment into the idea.[/QUOTE] I don't see why we should be too concerned about taking a few % of millions of dollars to support the people who enabled those people to even generate their wealth in the first place if the result of that is a vastly better healthcare system. Some things are just worth it. I mean I just don't get the point of wealth I guess because when there's several trillion just sitting in off share havens, what's the point of that? For the rich to literally have enough money to influence global politics for their own benefit? I can't forsee a reason other than "To make more money, to make more money with, to make more money with" for the world to function as it is now. There's nothing being gained by humanity doing that. I know that's a tenous argument, but it's just frankly unmaintanable to keep doing what we're doing, to keep handing favours to billionaires and millionaires left and right. There has to be some point, where an average person has to be taken care of better.

Looking at the relative share of income one would be willing to pay is more helpful (which they also did in the article) - asking for absolute numbers is assuming each candidate share the same income demographic (which they perhaps should've aknowledged instead of the line "When we asked what percentage of their income they would pay, rather than a dollar figure, voters seem to be a bit more generous." - it may not have anything to do with generosity). Bernie's supporters are still the "most generous" either way, and this quote here honestly makes me think there's something wrong with the way they questioned people: [QUOTE]In 2015, the average person on an employer-sponsored health plan paid a little more than $1,000 annually in premiums, and the average family paid nearly $5,000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In other words, even Sanders supporters are saying they don't want to pay as much to the federal government for health care as they are paying right now in the private sector.[/QUOTE] People probably think in terms of their current budget (which may include healthcare already) when they say how much they'd pay in taxes for universal healthcare - who would choose to pay 5 times as much for private healthcare?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138742]How is "Most bernie sanders voters" only 9%? how does this make any sense?[/QUOTE] If you read the article: [quote]When we polled voters, we found most Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for his biggest proposals. That's well short of how much more the average taxpayer would pay under his tax plan.[/quote] Though doesn't change it's a slimy way to make a point.

Perhaps I just can't math right, but it looks like his numbers are better than clinton's on this issue. How is this even a thing that is being brought up? Of course people will generally want to pay less if they are already paying relatively a lot of their total income.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138835]It's an interesting dilemma when the majority of people can force the minority to pay for stuff. Once that happens the only thing stopping a total gouging of the minority is the good nature of the majority.[/QUOTE] The majority is surprisingly willing to let rich people be very rich, which is very well illustrated by the rising inequality. The tax brackets are also relatively low, which is another boon to people who earn massive amounts of money.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50138888]The majority is surprisingly willing to let rich people be very rich, which is very well illustrated by the rising inequality. The tax brackets are also relatively low, which is another boon to people who earn massive amounts of money.[/QUOTE] The phenomenon I'm talking about is a pretty recent one. We're sitting right around the important number of 50% of the US population not paying any federal income tax. Once that happens it will be as easy as getting the bottom 50% of voters to decide on giving themselves benefits by taxing the minority. Now, it's not that simple because poorer people are less likely to be politically active, but the percentages are getting larger, not smaller. So we'll get there eventually.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138835]It's an interesting dilemma when the majority of people can force the minority to pay for stuff. Once that happens the only thing stopping a total gouging of the minority is the good nature of the majority.[/QUOTE] I don't think there's much a of a dilemma in asking the people with the most to pay the most. They'll still be rich even with a minor tax hike, while a tax hike on a poor person could financially cripple them.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50138984]I don't think there's much a of a dilemma in asking the people with the most to pay the most. They'll still be rich even with a minor tax hike, while a tax hike on a poor person could financially cripple them.[/QUOTE] You're softening in, though. They are not asking. They are demanding at risk of imprisonment. I'm not so much talking about an individual small tax hike. I'm talking about the concept of a majority being able to increase taxes on just the minority. I think it's fairly naive to assume that people won't take advantage of that over time.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138989]You're softening in, though. They are not asking. They are demanding at risk of imprisonment.[/QUOTE] And? Unless you're some mad libertarian I don't see the problem, it's a perfectly fair system. It's about giving something back to the society that let you be rich in the first place.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;50138716]I'd like to see a comparison between wage of the "supporters" and the amount they say they'd like to pay, as far as I'm aware the source polls don't offer such a comparison. IE: The sanders supporters could not have as much to offer up as, say, a trump supporter.[/QUOTE] Trump voters are almost certainly poorer than Sanders voters.

[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;50139008]Trump voters are almost certainly poorer than Sanders voters.[/QUOTE] I highly doubt it. Sanders' voters are younger and similarly educated when compared to Trump voters based on entrance polls for the Iowa caucus. ([URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/01/us/elections/iowa-democrat-poll.html?_r=0[/URL]) ([URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/01/us/elections/iowa-republican-poll.html[/URL]) Younger people, on average, have less money than older people.

The entire point of society, is that society invests in you, and then you give back to society - proportionally. If you want to opt out of that system, feel free to get off the planet.

In Sweden 13% of your taxes goes to healthcare, which is enough to make it all free. 13% of a 30% income tax should be roughly 4% of your total income if I'm correct. In that chart they go from <5% to >30% of your income, quite an insane range. It's very interesting to see that there are Americans that are willing to pay more for healthcare than we pay in Sweden.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138989]You're softening in, though. They are not asking. They are demanding at risk of imprisonment. I'm not so much talking about an individual small tax hike. I'm talking about the concept of a majority being able to increase taxes on just the minority. I think it's fairly naive to assume that people won't take advantage of that over time.[/QUOTE] No matter how much the majority decides to tax the minority, worst case scenario the minority end up being taxed to the point of being a bit richer than half the US population (because anything lower would make them part of the majority), which is certainly enough to live comfortably. Nothing as dramatic as threatening their livelihood. Just less money wasted on useless luxury shit.

Wow, heavily misleading title.

are you sure you didn't read the graph right bud, because it says the literal opposite

I don't think a tax between 500-1000$ for healthcare is unrealistic, I don't think he has a concrete number on what it would cost per person in taxes but I can't believe it would be 5k per person [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] It's more telling that half of all Republicans will not raise any tax at all to pay for healthcare [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] They're using employee premiums to base their number on which on average is SHOCKINGLY just above 1k, they don't state how much above though, but IF you assume that 1k is the amount he needs then yes, half of his supporters aren't willing to spend more than what they currently are paying in healthcare HOWEVER that ignores the fact that we are shafted for healthcare costs under an insurance system, people want that number to come down and the analysts say it should come down on a single payer system