Here's how much a Bernie Sanders presidency would cost

[Gothmog]

Link to tweet

If you ever wondered how much Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) vast array of policy proposals would cost, we now have a reasonably good estimate from his own staff. The answer is about $50 trillion over the next decade. Sanders may or may not be a “democratic socialist” — whatever that means — but he clearly is a soak-the-rich radical who would dramatically expand the government’s role, from cradle to grave.

Whether most Americans prefer Sanders’s statist agenda to the alleged abuses of corporations and Wall Street (the notorious “top 1 percent”) is what defines this election. Whatever the case, Sanders is proposing a hugely expensive transformation.

Let’s examine the $50 trillion. The list below shows various spending programs that Sanders has proposed, with one important exception: The first item on the list is the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the deficits under existing policies for the next decade. That figure is $13.1 trillion.

Sanders’s Spending, 2021-2030:
1. Deficits under existing policies: $13.1 trillion
2. “Free” college for all and the cancellation of existing student debt: $2.2 trillion
3. Expand Social Security and other retirement benefits: $1.4 trillion (estimated by the Progressive Policy Institute)
4. Housing for all: $2.5 trillion
5. Eliminating household medical debt: $81 billion
6. Green New Deal (programs to stop global warming): $16.3 trillion
7. Universal child care and preschool: $1.5 trillion
8. Medicare-for-all: $17.5 trillion
Total: $54.6 trillion

The problem is that sanders has no idea as to how pay for these progarms
“Sanders’s proposals won’t raise nearly as much money as he thinks they will,” says Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “Even if they did, they won’t pay for everything he wants.”
For example, Sanders proposes a wealth tax on taxpayers with a net worth (assets minus liabilities) of $32 million or more. The tax would gradually rise from 1 percent up to 8 percent on fortunes exceeding $10 billion. Sanders estimates this would raise $4.35 trillion over a decade.

Not likely, says Gleckman. About half of the wealth of the rich is contained in privately held businesses that, unlike publicly traded stocks, are hard to value. He thinks the tax would raise far less than expected. “Rich people won’t stand by and pay taxes,” he says.
“They will hire expensive lawyers to avoid taxes.” Similar problems would erode revenue from a proposed tax on financial transactions, he says.

Even with some added tax revenue, there still would be a $25 trillion gap between Sanders’s spending plans and an equivalent amount of new tax revenue, says analyst Ben Ritz of the PPI. Federal spending would approach 40 percent of gross domestic product, up from about 20 percent now.

[dalton99a]

1. Add free car with free gas & insurance to sweeten the pot

[TexasTowelie]

9. Did you say free pot?

[OnDoutside]

13. As Scooby would say....

?itemid=8687005

[Gothmog]

2. Sanders has yet to explain how he'll pay for half of his agenda

Link to tweet

[Cha]

3. Thanks for this, Goth.. mind-boggling

when someone like Howard Gleckman is paying attention to the math.

[Thekaspervote]

4. Interesting post.. thx!

[Historic NY]

5. Forget the billionares, better find trillionares.

dumbass has already blown up the budget into the trillions,

[brush]

6. Very questioable judgment to promise/campaign on all those things without...h

knowing how to pay for them—sorta like the naiveté/egoism in thinking America is ready to elect a socialist.

[Recursion]

7. See, I don't personally think the money is the problem. It's the workers.

We can find or print the money. We can't print the workers.

A Green New Deal is going to create 15 million jobs? Who the hell is going to work them? There's already twice as many open positions in the US as there are people looking for work (7 million vs. 3.5 million). There's not some idle cache of construction engineers and environmental scientists sitting around on their duffs looking for something to do.

Location is a problem too. Promising "a job for everyone" sounds nice, but where will these jobs be? Are you going to open a jobs center in West Bumblefuck, Iowa, and 17,000 other tiny towns like it? Because right now if you can fog a mirror and you're in a metro area you can get a job.

[mahina]

8. If only there was a candidate with a complete

Plan.

Still a little blue over here.

[caraher]

10. I feel you

[mahina]

11. Thanks mate

/ I am not undecided. I picked a great candidate right early and we just lost.

[safeinOhio]

12. Cost nothing to

name a couple of Post Offices

[OnDoutside]

14. MPOGA