The Price of Socialism

Holy cow:

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ tax and spending proposals would provide new levels of health and education benefits for American families, but they’d also blow an $18-trillion hole in federal deficits, piling on so much debt they would damage the economy.

That sobering assessment comes from a joint analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute Health Policy Center, well-known Washington think tanks.

The bottom line: Democratic presidential candidate Sanders would raise taxes by more than $15 trillion over 10 years, with most of that paid by upper-income earners. But that wouldn’t be enough to cover the cost of his proposed government-run health care system, along with free undergraduate college, enhanced Social Security, family and medical leave, among other new programs.

As a result, Sanders would add $18 trillion to federal debt over a decade.

The Sanders campaign is trying to wriggle out of this, claiming that their healthcare plan will save lots of money because … because … well, because they want it to. But I am totally unsurprised by this. I have said it in this space a million times: you can’t pay for a social welfare state just by taxing “the rich”. There’s not enough money. Every European welfare state pays for itself with heavy taxes on the middle class — VATs, sales taxes, excise taxes, income taxes. Their tax systems are way less progressive than our because they have to be. In the end, you have to go where the money is.

This is the big problem with Sanders’ promises. You have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for them. And people don’t want higher taxes even if they supposedly come with Awesome Government Benefits. Sanders’ own state rejected socialized medicine because it was too expensive.

I’d say this would be the nail in the coffin of the Sanders campaign except that (1) many of his supporters don’t care about math; (2) I’m sure Clinton will find a way to bungle this incredibly easy and salient talking point.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

     I have said it in this space a million times: you can’t pay for a social welfare state just by taxing “the rich”. 

    Speaking of taxing the rich, I am always amused at the somersaults Trump produces whenever his tax plan is discussed;

    On tax rates for the wealthy, Mr. Trump said, “In my plan they’re going down, but by the time it’s negotiated, they’ll go up,” due to pressure from Democratic lawmakers.

    Square that circle. And in case you missed it, this genius when it comes to negotiating just gave away his hand, admitting a weak hand and what he will fold on. I would love to get him in a poker game.

    Remind me again how Trump is going to be so much better then Hillary when it comes to tax reform?

    But I guess I must be suffering from TDS.

     

    Thumb up 0

  2. InsipiD

    With $15 trillion in new taxes it would still add $18 trillion to the debt in 10 years?  That’s almost magical.  $33 trillion in extra spending over 10 years, or $3.3 trillion average per year.  Our GDP is about $18 trillion annually, so he’s proposing annual government spending increases of 18% of the GDP.  I don’t even know how a commie like him can justify that.

    They will try to justify this as being something that we should want to do.  Something that is compassionate and beneficial to society by helping people.  What they forget is that other people are paying for it.  I think that the best way to quickly show spending out of control and show how harmful it is would be to describe it in terms of people cost.  In 2013, per capita GDP was about $53,000.  Assume that most people have a working career of 45 years, during which they’re making less than average early and more than average at the end, so it basically evens out.  That means that each person, on average, contributes $2,385,000 to the GDP.  Therefore, each billion in spending could fairly be described as the entire life’s work of 420 people.  A trillion?  420,000!  Additional spending of 1.4 million people lifetimes per year!?  HELL, NO!  Anyone who is proposing additional spending in billions ought to have to justify why their plan is worth the life’s work of 420 people per billion, so it damn well better be good.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Hal_10000 *

    But I guess I must be suffering from TDS.

    I hear you. In the past 24 hours, I’ve been accused of TDS, ODS, OIS, TIS, Libertarian Derangement Syndrome, Reagan Infatuation Syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

    Ok, that last one might actually be a thing.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT

    With $15 trillion in new taxes it would still add $18 trillion to the debt in 10 years?  That’s almost magical.  $33 trillion in extra spending over 10 years, or $3.3 trillion average per year.

    Vote buying is expensive and tiring business man. Anyone not agreeing to this must be wreckers and kulaks, and I will not be surprised that as the shit hits the fan they will be sent to the reeducation camps..

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT

    I’m sure that’s Obama’s fault.

    There is plenty of real stuff the guy can be blamed for, and while I am sure in some crazy and convoluted way you could even attribute the rise of Trump to the 8 Obama years, I think the real culprit there is the republican insiders clique and their lies about fighting Obama’s agenda but doing nothing of the sort.

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    There is plenty of real stuff the guy can be blamed for

    Exactly. But as so many of you lack any self-control, you blame everything on Obama and so lose any credibility. Totally counter-productive. Just like it was for the BDS sufferers.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Hal_10000 *

    With $15 trillion in new taxes it would still add $18 trillion to the debt in 10 years?  That’s almost magical.  $33 trillion in extra spending over 10 years, or $3.3 trillion average per year.

    That’s the price of taking over the healthcare system.  Sanders assumes we will magically save money because … well, because he assumes it.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Miguelito

    I remember reading an article about his plan a few months ago.  It pointed out that one of the assumptions is made to pay for itself was YoY growth of the economy of like 5.5%.  The article pointed out that no sane economist would ever allow an assumption like that, especially a plan with all the rest of the economy nuking stuff in it.  It pointed out the only economist that did say it was good, was (lo and behold) the same jackass that apparently helped come up with said plan.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Hal_10000 *

    I hadn’t seen that, Miguelito.  Sounds like the kind of thing they’d need.

    First, assume a giant economic boom …

    Thumb up 0

  10. AlexInCT

    Exactly. But as so many of you lack any self-control, you blame everything on Obama and so lose any credibility.

    Oh Bullshit. I blame him for what he is responsible and have even defended him when he was being unjustly accused, precisely because when people do that, it delegitimizes the horrible shit he and others in his circle have been doing. You don’t like when I point out he has destroyed the economy because then you are left with having to use the defense that the idiotic collectivist shit you believe in didn’t work because Obama was not the right guy to do that.

    Thumb up 0

  11. AlexInCT

    That’s the price of taking over the healthcare system.  Sanders assumes we will magically save money because … well, because he assumes it.

    Why wouldn’t he? People like him believe that good intentions are enough to overcome economic reality and human nature. Others, like Clinton and Obama know it won’t work regardless, but they are in it for the spoils and could care less about the trail of bodies they leave behind, while they rake it in.

    Free healthcare means only the connected elite will have any semblance of healthcare, just like free education has made it that only those that can avoid the public school system or have the wherewithal to work around the massive amount of damage it causes can get a modicum of success. Imagine what it would mean when they make college free too!

    Envy and jealousy are powerful emotions, and the power grabbers have been tapping into it to upset the status quo since the dawn of time. It never ends well, but uneducated masses driven by emotional appeal seem to cyclically fall for these snake oil sellers and the hell on earth they create with their promise of justice.

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    and have even defended him when he was being unjustly accused

    Can you show me some examples. I don’t recall that ever happening.

    You don’t like when I point out he has destroyed the economy 

    Not quite, I’ve pointed out that you’re using out-of-date and/or bullshit in order to try and do so. And that you suffer from ODS, which you clearly do (and by your own standards, you used to suck GWB cock).

    the idiotic collectivist shit you believe

    You’ve demonstrated so many times that I have lost count that you have no clue what I believe. You seemingly only operating in black and white terms (which also explains the inability to differentiate between sucking Obama’s cock and simply pointing out that you’re wrong about something – your 2012 illiterate cherry-picking economic link for example). Do you understand?

     

    Thumb up 0