• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We will pay less taxes under a Bernie government. Do you believe this?

We will pay less taxes under a Bernie government. Do you believe this?

  • Need more info

    Votes: 10 17.9%
  • No, it will cost more in taxes and fees

    Votes: 43 76.8%
  • Yes, it will cost less in taxes and fees

    Votes: 3 5.4%

  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
Wether you like it or not they cost the US healthcare system and taxpayers money regardless, integrating them officially in the system would probably lower costs. Not to mention the risk to public health if illegals avoid medical care and treatment. It is soemthing that has to be analyzed.

Hmm... analyzed but never stopped? That's an interesting plan that you have for the US - why doesn't Canada take a few million more of those "asylum seekers" since they (allegedly) only cost you half as much to take care of?
 
We're talking about government spending vs. tax revenue and whether, or not we'll have to pay more taxes. In this discussion, there's no other way to look at it.

You may pay more taxes but you will ultimately have less private expenditures on top of the other economic benefits.
 
I think as it stands in the way that The American Government and the healthcare industry is structured, getting UHC just doesn’t seem a realistic outcome, at least not for the foreseeable future.

But god there are dumb people who think UHC doesn’t work, who are being absolutely bent over and ****ed by HMOs, hospitals and doctors in the current business structure and think it’s just fantastic, how ****ing deluded and brainwashed can you be?
 
Hmm... analyzed but never stopped? That's an interesting plan that you have for the US - why doesn't Canada take a few million more of those "asylum seekers" since they (allegedly) only cost you half as much to take care of?

That is an entirely separate argument. I like your suggestions in other threads to discourage illegal immigration and punish those who employ them. But that is not the debate here. The question is of it is more cost efficient to have illegals officially integrated into a system or keep just paying for it in an ad-hoc system. Refugees can be an investment, give them the right resources they can become productive tax-paying citizens. Canada will take in legitimate refugees I think you confuse legitimate refugees and illegals. And that is what Canada is seeing now, Syrian refugees are now becoming successful citizens just in time for the federal election.
 
Last edited:
We will only benefit if the wealthy pay their fare share. You can’t keep giving the rich tax breaks and expect the country to thrive. This is not how it works. Reagan gave the rich the biggest tax break and every repub after that tried to do the same most successfully. Even some really rich people see this is how we get this country on the right track for everyone.
 
Private business shouldn't have to compete with the federal government.

Healthcare should not involve the profit motive.

Obvious moral hazard.

And before you start, I'm quite sure the scientists who do the actual work would be just as happy to get their paychecks from the government as from a corporation. Happier probably as they would be able to research what needs researching as opposed to only that which will generate the maximum profit for their employers
 
All he talks about is raising taxes and giving away more taxpayer money. Less in taxes? Not likely.
 
Healthcare should not involve the profit motive.

Obvious moral hazard.

And before you start, I'm quite sure the scientists who do the actual work would be just as happy to get their paychecks from the government as from a corporation. Happier probably as they would be able to research what needs researching as opposed to only that which will generate the maximum profit for their employers

The only thing in life that doesn't involve a profit motive is a charity. Do you want the government to become a "charity"...at the barrel of a gun?
 
Free health care, free college, higher minimum wage

And all for less money than we're paying now?

More info is necessary. It's possible, but it would need to be a damned good plan.
 
That is an entirely separate argument. I like your suggestions in other threads to discourage illegal immigration and punish those who employ them. But that is not the debate here. The question is of it is more cost efficient to have illegals officially integrated into a system or keep just paying for it in an ad-hoc system. Refugees can be an investment, give them the right resources they can become productive tax-paying citizens. Canada will take in legitimate refugees I think you confuse legitimate refugees and illegals. And that is what Canada is seeing now, Syrian refugees are now becoming successful citizens just in time for the federal election.

If those are the only two options then let's just invite the world's poor in to enjoy the "free" stuff for all and abolish ICE/DHS - that will save everyone money as we have been assured.

Like I said before, the US has a single-payer DoD system which keeps the MIC very profitable and congress critters loaded with campaign cash (legal bribes?). What could possibly go wrong by giving our congress critters total control of yet another major (about 18% of GDP) industry?
 
Free health care, free college, higher minimum wage

And all for less money than we're paying now?
The only thing that is free for all of us is the BS every one of these candidates spews out their mouths!
 
In the long run, probably. But no one ever thinks about the long-term in politics.

I think we would definitely save money on our healthcare costs.
 
Healthcare should not involve the profit motive.

Obvious moral hazard.

And before you start, I'm quite sure the scientists who do the actual work would be just as happy to get their paychecks from the government as from a corporation. Happier probably as they would be able to research what needs researching as opposed to only that which will generate the maximum profit for their employers

Hmm... yet food, clothing and shelter should?
 
If those are the only two options then let's just invite the world's poor in to enjoy the "free" stuff for all and abolish ICE/DHS - that will save everyone money as we have been assured.

Like I said before, the US has a single-payer DoD system which keeps the MIC very profitable and congress critters loaded with campaign cash (legal bribes?). What could possibly go wrong by giving our congress critters total control of yet another major (about 18% of GDP) industry?

There are only two options. You can't just make it illegal to treat illegal immigrants, that would create even more problems and costs. You think every other Western country and alturistic and incorruptible politicians? No, yet it still works, it just needs the people behind it.

Can you mess it tip yes, but the status quo is not sustainable either.
 
Last edited:
You lost me. I'm talking private insurer's profits.

SNAP pays grocery providers full retail prices. Most of the savings advertised by a public option (or UHC system) are from reduced payments to care providers. There is no way to save 40% to 50% by simply eliminating the profit (or even overhead) of insurance companies. Simply removing (replacing?) the "middle man" would be savings on the order of 5% to 10% (at best) yet leave many folks unemployed in the process. How much does the VA save by being 100% government run?
 
Hmm... yet food, clothing and shelter should?

My statement was more deliberate exaggeration.

More accurately the profit motive should be watched closely in any area that can be defined as necessary to sustain life.

As in, when you have them by the balls...

Whatever the traffic will bear is ok with luxuries, but things you will die without? We've all seen those movies.

Human beings often end up with "solutions" that are suspect.

Every problem can't he solved with a plan that is based solely on maximum profit. Too many things that people need or that need to be done will never generate adequate profit AND fulfill those needs.

Which means capitalism doesn't believe they should be done at all.

Capitalism is pretty blind
 
You may pay more taxes but you will ultimately have less private expenditures on top of the other economic benefits.

I oppose paying more taxes.
 
Bernie's socialist agenda will cost American Taxpayers an estimated $3.1 TRILLION per year for all the "free" stuff.

It would crush us.

Good, that's less then we pay now.
 
The only thing in life that doesn't involve a profit motive is a charity. Do you want the government to become a "charity"...at the barrel of a gun?

I would posit that the "less destructive outlet for the urge to empire", which capitalism is, still doesn't address the urge to empire.

Which is why capitalism becomes predatory.
 
SNAP pays grocery providers full retail prices. Most of the savings advertised by a public option (or UHC system) are from reduced payments to care providers. There is no way to save 40% to 50% by simply eliminating the profit (or even overhead) of insurance companies.
Where did you get "40 to 50%" from?

Simply removing (replacing?) the "middle man" would be savings on the order of 5% to 10% (at best) yet leave many folks unemployed in the process.
Actually, the number used to be 27%, but was reduced to 17-22% under ObamaCare. Medicaid overhead was around 5% last I checked, so there's the 15% - or so - savings I see.

How much does the VA save by being 100% government run?
You're comparing apples & oranges. We're looking at medicaid/medicare expansion (private provider), not government run V.A. healthcare (public provider). I would not want public-provider healthcare, unless there was no other viable alternative.
 
I oppose paying more taxes.

Even if it means that you pay less in total for everything in the long run? So even if you ultimately have more more in your pocket at the end of the day you don't support it?
 
Yep, just like it is in Vermont - loads of free stuff and lower taxes too. Oh wait... Vermont has the 4th highest state taxation and somehow lacks that free stuff for all.

2019’s Tax Burden by State

Vermont also has some of the best schools and social services in the country. It's not like we throw our money down the drain. Taxation works.
 
Back
Top Bottom