Most Bernie Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay for his revolution

[workinclasszero]

Most Bernie Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay for his revolution
Updated by Alvin Chang on April 14, 2016, 1:00 p.m. ET

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.

Two in three Sanders supporters don't want to pay more than $1,000, or at all, for universal health care
About 66 percent of Sanders supporters said they wouldn't be willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for universal health care. This includes the 8 percent of Sanders supporters who aren't willing to pay anything at all.


http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution

[eShirl]

1. A flat tax is regressive. n/t

[NurseJackie]

2. People are beginning to pay attention.

Things aren't looking good for Bernie.

[noretreatnosurrender]

6. Yes they are begining to pay attention

and that is a very good thing for Bernie Sanders.

[COLGATE4]

29. Actually, not so much.

Latest NY Poll: Hillary, 57% Bernie 41%.

[workinclasszero]

7. And these are Sanders supporters!

Not willing to pay more than 1000 more for free health care and free college!

It will take way more that a grand apiece and that goes for the working class to, not just the rich!

[passiveporcupine]

3. Another thread where they use his rise in taxes for single payer health care

wlithout considering the reduction in premiums and deductibles that more than offset those higher taxes.

Oh, and another thing, a lot of Sanders' supporters are living close to poverty, or worse, and don't have to pay income taxes and won't be paying more for his plans at all. So, of course they will say they don't want to pay a thousand bucks they cannot afford.

Any new tax plans Bernie comes up with will always be progressive.

Aren't we getting tired of this yet?

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Hey but most people can't "do the math" so it works.

The billionaire class has bought themselves the best bullshit artists there are and have managed to convince us to vote against our own self interest for decades now. Half the Democratic Party is convinced that we should just stay the center-right Thatcher-Reagan course.

[passiveporcupine]

17. Unfortunately you are right about that.

And it has it's affect right here in this forum, as you can see downthread.

[Go Vols]

19. Yep

[CentralCoaster]

11. Worthless push polling, "hide thread" worthy OP. nt

[cheapdate]

26. Good answer.

[artislife]

34. Well Zero is living up to his screen name. nt

[apcalc]

4. Very good

[seabeyond]

5. Sanders is not willing at 13.4%, and two decades in adult life not contributing. It is the worker

that pays.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. arrgle-barrgle.

I know you don't believe this nonsense.

[riversedge]

8. umm.. very telling indeed. Thanks for post

[workinclasszero]

9. Average family of four will pay 6000 bucks a year

I'm sure the Trump wouldn't mention that in the general campaign!

[CentralCoaster]

13. Nope, that's waaaaay off.

You better show your work if you want credit for that answer.

Discussion here: Between ~$466 and $3,600, IF employers made employees pay.

Even the worst case, $3,600 or $300/month for an employee, spouse, and two children is SUPER CHEAP FOR INSURANCE.

Hell, I'm paying $700/month for one person.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/bernie-sanders-releases-outline-universal-health-care-plan%E2%80%94and-its-pretty-good

[DebDoo]

27. I'd rather pay the tax increase

My family of four currently spends 3.6% of our pre-tax income on premiums alone. That's 3.6% spent before we even see a doctor once. Add in the deductible and we're up to 4.6% and we still have to pay copays.

Just a few short years ago it was even worse. Premiums alone were 5.5% of our income and the total cost with deductible was 7% , after which we still had to pay 10% of medical expenses until we hit our max out of pocket. The total with max out of pocket came to 8.5% (which we more than hit the year I had a baby because my pregnancy wrapped over two "insurance years&quot .

A 2% tax increase is looking fine to me. And btw, the reason our health care costs were so high in that second scenario is because the employer decided the best way to save some money was to cut back on the portion they were paying towards our premium - not because the company wasn't profitable but because it wasn't "profitable enough". So I'm fine with the payroll tax too.

[catnhatnh]

14. Vox???

I stick their fish wrap in the same DailyNewsBin I stuff the PeoplesView!

[napi21]

15. I suspect it depends on how you ask the question,

If you ask "Are you willing to pay more in taxes to support the Sanders plans?" The answer will most likely no, or not too much. If you ask "Would you still support the Sanders plans if the net effect, (raise in taxes less health care costs & college tuition, etc.) would be around $1,000?" I think it would be a different answer.

I have 2 sons. Both have good jobs, but one's employer provides health care for $500/mo. copay, and the other's employer doesn't provide health care, and buying it on his own costs him $1,250/mo. I guarantee you they would both be happy to get rid of those costs. Plus one has a daughter in college and a son is a senior in HS. The other wants to go back to school to finish his degree, but can't right now because of costs.

[uponit7771]

16. Soooo, Sanders has no real answers just good marketing and the revolutionaries aren't

... willing to put the least about of skin in the game.

Yeap, more proof this is more about anger for having to share power with the other than real change.

Sanders might as well stand up there and scream at the podium bird... be more entertaining

[RashaMZak]

25. Because the one who labeled the Republicans as one of her top enemies during a debate

and has been in perpetual conflict with them is going to do any better with 'sharing power'. We're tired when the only power shared with the right is the power of stomping on us with horrible trade deals, hostile foreign actions/wars, police/surveillance state expansion, and deregulation. For that matter, we're beyond a point of "incremental change" and "compromise" for taking a stand on climate change. She and the rest of the older crowd aren't going to live the horrors that Gen-X and especially anyone younger such as myself will if we just putt-putt around on the climate issue. Any leaders who aren't willing to fight bitter tooth and nail for the environment as one of their primary goals is a traitor to the future of humankind.
I truly mean this - if there is not bold action taken now, there will be blood later. That is no threat by me, that is the grim reality in the midst of this sixth mass extinction. We're witnessing the rapid declines, maybe even soon extinctions, of many species of: butterflies, bees, bats, coral, starfish, whales, edible fish, bananas, oranges, forest tree populations, sea birds...

A future of more droughts, heatwaves, floods, extreme storms, rising sea levels, crop failures, famines, later to be lead to looting, riots, resource wars. We face reawakened viruses from thawing permafrost or the strengthening of other invasive nightmarish pests, like Kudzu and Poison ivy, that grow more rapidly in warming climates. In agriculture we're seeing super weeds and an explosion of insect pests no longer facing the same deep freezes that would normally kill them. Speakin' o' bugs, ticks are thriving on the warmer winters, as the other big vector, mosquitoes, seem to be spreading more viruses up even further.

We need a real firebrand, a "give em Hell, Harry", the kind of leader I hoped for in Obama only to be let down. I can't imagine more from Hillary Clinton than some closed door negotiations with some corporations to talk out half-assed "incremental" measures while more jobs and the social safety net are bargained away. The same one who promised us she would somehow remove all lead, everywhere, speaking of impractical, astronomically costing ideas. If half-hearted near-status-quo is the next 8 years, then we'll look back to this time in worse points ahead, shaking our heads, thinking "we once had that chance..." I truly wish this debate, and economic justice, was the driving dialogue of this damn election, because they are of the biggest issues to the future of humanity.

[LiberalFighter]

18. I as a retiree would not want to pay for health care I am already receiving

from my past employer. Health care that was paid for by taking a reduction in my wages.

[Barack_America]

20. I am.

And, yes, my taxes will increase.

[ibegurpard]

21. Well of course they wouldn't

On top of the premiums and out of pockets they're paying now. But this push-poll didn't seem to include an either/or option...

[Go Vols]

23. TY

[SoLeftIAmRight]

24. something smells very bad

...

[guillaumeb]

28. Make up stories about the supposed high cost of single payer,

try to frighten people with the two favorite GOP memes of higher taxes and big government is bad for you.

Remind me again how the Democrats are offering a substantive difference from the GOP.

Pathetic, overdone repeat of a post that has been disproved many times this year.

[smiley]

30. I currently pay almost $2000/yr for health insurance I don't use.

I would welcome only paying $1000.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Maybe if we stopped spending billions every year putting pot smokers in prison

We could afford a whole bunch of things.

http://time.com/4263411/oregon-marijuana-tax-revenue/

[silvershadow]

32. And yet he has beat Hillary in fundraising for three months in a row! nt

[liberalnarb]

33. Funny. My family would SAVE $1,200 a month.

hmmm