* On April 8, 2020, Bernie Sanders dropped out of the presidential race, paving way for Joe Biden to be the Democratic presidential candidate. Bernie’s views were too extreme, even though proposals such as UBI and healthcare for all is needed now more than ever during the pandemic.
Sooner or later investors will stop freaking out about the coronavirus. We will become inured to the word and to the daily death toll numbers just like how we’ve become inured whenever we hear about something tragic has happened on the news.
In the long run, I’m hopeful that a lot of positives will come out of this coronavirus-induced market panic. I’m hopeful that as early as this summer, we’ll be able to look back on this time period and wish we had bought more equities.
Unfortunately, for a capitalist, there is no time to rest. As capitalists, we must always be aware of the next variable that may benefit or hurt our wealth creation goals and adjust accordingly. Thus, after the panic surrounding the coronavirus starts to fade, I’m certain investors will turn their focus on the Presidential race.
Democratic Socialist, Bernie Sanders has a decent chance of becoming the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States. It’s basically a two-man race between Bernie and Joe. As Bernie’s popularity grows, given his anti-capitalistic policies, so will volatility in the stock market.
A Bernie Sanders Presidency
If Bernie Sanders beats Donald Trump in 2020 (~20% chance), we should expect the S&P 500 to correct by at least 20%. Perhaps the market is already baking some of this Bernie risk in. After all, Bernie has been one of the most vocal candidates against big corporations. And the S&P 500 is made up of the largest 500 corporations in America.
Besides potentially losing lots of money in the stock market, the other fear is that American workers will have to pay higher income taxes to pay for universal healthcare, free college, and wiping out more than $1.6 trillion in student debt. That’s not a bad trade if you are paying high healthcare premiums and have kids who plan to go to college.
As I reflect on Bernie’s rise, even though I’m a diehard capitalist, I’ve come to realize that Bernie could actually be the best thing for me and my family.
The main reasons why I’ve decided to get back on the saddle is due to my $2,380/month family healthcare bill and looming $4,000+/month preschool tuition bill for two children.
With Bernie as president, instead of expending a lot of my time and energy trying to make more money, I could throttle back and spend a lot more quality time co-raising my precious 10-week-old and 3-year-old. They sure grow up quick!
I’m just not sure whether Bernie can raise taxes high enough to pay for everything, but let’s look at how he plans to pay for all his programs.
Related: The Net Worth Of Presidential Candidates
Bernie Sanders’s Proposals To Raise Revenue
Sanders said on Stephen Colbert, “Is healthcare free? No, it is not. So what we do is exempt the first $29,000 of a person’s income. You make less than $29,000, you pay nothing in taxes. Above that, in a progressive way, with the wealthiest people paying the largest percentage, people do pay more in taxes.”
In an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Sanders said Medicare for All would cost $30 trillion over 10 years.
Sanders identified nine methods to finance the plan, which when combined, would raise about $17.5 trillion over a decade. Unfortunately, that still leaves a $12.5 trillion shortfall!
Here are his revenue-generating proposals:
- Create a 4% income-based premium for employees that exempts the first $29,000 of income for a family of four. This would generate $4 trillion.
- Enact a 7.5% income-based premium that employers pay, excluding the first $1 million in payroll. This would raise $5.4 trillion.
- Eliminate health tax expenditures. This would save $5.2 trillion.
- Tax capital gains the same as income. This would raise $2.5 trillion.
- Raise the federal corporate tax rate back to 35% before Trump became President and direct $1 trillion of the revenue towards financing Medicare for All.
- Raise the top marginal income tax rate to 52% on income above $10 million to fund universal healthcare.
- Lower the estate limit well below the $11.58 million per person and raise the estate tax rate above 40%
Most of these revenue-generating proposals aren’t too punitive for most Americans. The main proposals I would be concerned about are:
- The 4% income-based premium paid by employees who make over $29,000
- How badly corporate profits will get hit and companies will get devalued if the corporate tax rate goes back up to 35%
- The estate tax level. If the estate tax level goes down to $1 million per person, people with more wealth will probably end up spending more money while living. This could be a good thing.
Higher Corporate Tax Rates
For background, the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) reduced the top US corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and the average combined federal and state rate from 38.9 percent to 25.8 percent.
As a result, the top US corporate tax rate, including the average state corporate rate, is now lower than that of all other leading economies in the G7 except the United Kingdom (with a 19 percent rate). Further, it is slightly below the average rate, weighted by gross domestic product (GDP), for the other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.
Lowering corporate tax rates is good for investors because earnings go up. The greater the earnings, the more money for R&D, expansion, and maintenance. Balance sheets are stronger and share prices move higher if valuations do not change.
If Bernie Sanders becomes President and raises corporate tax rates by 10%, then we should see on average, a 10% decline in earnings, all else being equal. Investors should, therefore, expect the S&P 500 to sell-off by at least 10% if Sanders win.
Higher Income Tax Rates
Believe it or not, I can’t find the definitive income tax rates proposed by Bernie Sanders. There seem to be only versions from when he ran in 2016 and various versions today. Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough.
The most helpful website I found that explains how Bernie’s tax plan would affect you is BernieTax.com. The disclaimer says it is not officially affiliated with Bernie Sanders and it was last updated in July 2019. Regardless, I thought it would be fun to input some numbers.
Given I have a new goal of trying to earn $350,000 a year by 2022 to take care of my family of four in expensive San Francisco, I used this income figure to see how much more I would pay under Bernie’s plan.
Here’s what I got.
According to the website, my annual disposable income would be $15,536 HIGHER with a Sanders tax plan. How could that be given $350,000 is a top 5% income in America?
The answer is because my family of four is paying $2,380 a month in healthcare premiums. I’m guessing that I’m paying $13,024 more a year in taxes under Sanders’s plan in EXCHANGE for saving $28,560 a year in healthcare (free healthcare). It sounds like a great deal, if true!
Whatever Bernie decides are the final income tax rates, the ultimate goal is to have the vast majority of Americans get more healthcare benefits than the higher taxes they will pay.
Below is a chart that highlights Bernie’s proposed marginal income tax rates (not definite) versus the current marginal income tax rates (definite).
Under the proposal below, my income tax doesn’t go up because the tax rates are the same up to $500,000 for married couples. And if the tax rates are really the same or similar for up to $500,000 for married couples, then 99% of Americans won’t really be paying more in tax.
So how can I pay the same amount of taxes under Bernie’s proposal, but save $15,536 a year on healthcare? Something isn’t right.
However, based on the final chart below, we find out the answer.
Although I will be paying the same amount of income tax, my annual healthcare spending will go to $0 and be replaced with a 4% income-based premium tax on taxable income. In other words, I will now be paying 4% of my potential taxable income ($325,600 X 4% = $13,024) in lieu of our $28,560 healthcare costs.
The 4 percent income-based premium tax paid by employees is highlighted on Bernie’s official website. Here is his official document explaining how he plans to pay for free healthcare for all. It sounds like a great deal.
Bernie’s Real Marginal Income Tax Rates
Unfortunately, it makes no sense that marginal income tax rates would stay the same up to $500,000. The BernieTax website is wrong, but it does give some helpful calculations as to what happens to cash flow.
Although Bernie Sanders keeps assailing billionaires for not paying their fair share of taxes (so as to garner the most amount of voter support), I’m assuming he is logically going to raise taxes on the top 50% of American income-earners.
Bernie Sanders’ real marginal income tax rates probably look something closer to this.
Everybody’s marginal income tax rates go up, except for those making up to $9,525. That is below poverty wage, as I’ve highlighted in a previous post. Then again, the proposed income tax rates don’t account for Bernie saying taxes are going up for everybody BUT those making under $29,000 a year.
Under this more likely Bernie Sanders marginal income tax plan, a $350,000 income would have to pay roughly $19,500 more in taxes. That’s OK if my $28,560 annual healthcare premium is completely wiped out, as that would increase my disposable annual income by $9,000. However, if I’m then taxed a 4% income-based premium equal to $13,024, my disposable income would go down $4,024 a year.
I’m assuming paying more income taxes and paying the 4% income-based premium is probably what Bernie Sanders has in mind for most Americans. In my case, the additional $4,024 a year in cash outflow isn’t huge because I’m already paying a massive amount in healthcare premiums.
Under the above Sanders income tax proposal, earning up to $100,000 per person is probably ideal. $38,701 – $82,500 is taxed at a 26% marginal tax rate, while the remaining $17,500 is taxed at a still reasonable 28% marginal tax rate. You’d end up paying $4,000 a year in income-based premium to cover all healthcare costs, which is a good deal.
After you start earning over $157,501 per person, however, you’re now paying a 36% marginal income tax rate. That doesn’t sound too good since you’ve also got to pay state income tax and the 4% income-based premium.
I just don’t know many people are willing to grind too hard to earn $250,000+ after standard deduction and pay a 44% federal marginal income tax rate plus a 4% income-based premium. Do you? People will find a way to hide their income or figure out other tax-saving strategies.
If Bernie Sanders Becomes President
Based on what we know so far about Bernie Sanders’ proposals, the ideal financial scenario should Bernie become president is:
- Make between $50,000 – $150,000 per person / $100,000 – $250,000 per couple, depending on location and lifestyle desires
- Decrease your weighting in stocks and increase your weighting in bonds, real estate, and cash
- Donate more to charity and spend more of your estate while living to get down to his new lower estate tax limit figures
- Work less and relax more because you no longer need to save as much for healthcare, your children’s education, and retirement
Bernie Sanders has probably purposefully not been explicitly clear about his income tax plan because he doesn’t want people calculating how much more in income taxes they will probably have to pay under his presidency.
All we know is that individuals making under $29,000 a year are probably not going to have to pay more taxes if he keeps his word. We can guess that married couples making under $58,000 will be safe too. We can probably also assume that household income can increase by $5,000 per child and not have to face increased taxes either.
The problem with Bernie Sanders’ revenue-generating proposals to pay for Medicare For All is that he’s still $12.5 trillion, or 42% short. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that once Bernie enters office that he will raise taxes even higher.
If Bernie Sanders win, I will forgo my extra 10 hours a week of grinding to accumulate more capital in order to retire again by September 2022. I will be less stressed, happier, and have more time to spend with my wife and kids. Paying $28,560 a year in healthcare on top of potentially paying $48,000+ a year in preschool for two kids is a real back-breaker.
Unless the coronavirus, between now and the November election causes a recession in the United States, it’s hard to see Bernie beating Donald Trump. The stock market was near an all-time high, unemployment is near an all-time low, and the economy is still strong overall.
Although nobody wishes the coronavirus to spread, if it aggressively does, it could actually help boost Bernie Sanders’ chances of winning.
I like how Bernie is asking a greater percentage of American workers to pitch in to pay for everything. I think his heart is in the right place. However, as someone who has spent every day since 2009 trying to help folks achieve financial independence for free, it’s very hard to change what people have become accustomed to.
As soon as you ask someone to pay for a benefit, those people tend to disappear. Over the years, I have had over a thousand people demand that I help them, without being thoughtful of my time. There is seldom an offer to even pay for a covfefe or a meal. Nevertheless, I continue to write because it feels good to help folks slice through money’s mysteries.
When everybody wants everything for free nowadays, it’s hard to see Bernie’s plan succeeding.
Readers, will your actions change if Bernie Sanders becomes president? Will you start rapidly spending your estate to avoid the death tax? Will your work habits change? I know we’re talking politics in this post, so please keep comments civil, otherwise, they will not be approved.
Note: I’m buying stocks as I always do after a 10%+ correction by funding my daughter’s 529 plan and my Solo 401(k), SEP IRA, and after-tax investment accounts. Here are my thoughts on the stock market will bottom.
Venezuela here we come!
Sam and Robert, just to weigh in and give my two cents from a microecon standpoint, I have to agree with Sam that I would not work the hours that I work if I had to pay a marginal tax rate over 40%. I am a patent attorney in the pharma industry and work pretty long hours. I am pretty passionate about and dedicated to my work, and it’s not surprising that I am a single taxpayer with no children. Many of my colleagues have also delayed or given up on having a family because of their preoccupation with their jobs. Many colleagues have international backgrounds, and we have had discussions over the years on what brought us to the US (and in my case, what made me stay in the US). The most common answer I hear is that no other country rewards hard work the way the US does in a way that is commensurate with the effort that is put in. For example, patent attorneys in Europe do not work the long hours that US attorneys work, but even if they did, the payoff in Europe would not be what it is in the US due to taxes and the tendency to equalize income and shun what is considered to be exorbitant earnings. It is in the US that we have experienced that we are able to earn and keep to do with as we please more of the fruits of the above-and-beyond hours and effort we have put in. I view this as one way in which the US stands for liberty and meritocracy.
When I visit Europe for business, many there tell me that they don’t want to work those long hours anyway, so they’re glad they do not live in the US. I take that to be a fair point, but then the people who want to put in the long hours and go where the ceiling is much higher will not stay. Penalizing the high earners or the hard workers with higher marginal taxes is not a good way to retain those earners/workers.
With a 40% or more marginal tax rate (including for long term capital gains), my stake in my work has just decreased. Robert, you say that more money is more money, which is technically true, but the stakes have definitely gotten lower for me for the same amount of work. With different stakes, people make different choices. There is also opportunity cost to consider. In my case, if I believed this new tax system is here to stay and not just a phase, I would do some research and look into moving to a different country that is more favorable for my situation. I would reconsider the advantage of living in the US versus another country that provides similar advantages without the taxation. In the past, I had always turned down job opportunities in Europe and Asia, but I would now actively look for opportunities elsewhere, targeting countries that have better conditions for me.
The other choice I may make is to stay in the US but not work as much and decide to have kids so that I can finally start seeing a return on all the taxes I pay. I would start utilizing the public school system and the healthcare. Whichever choice I make under the high tax system, the country would lose a large chunk of the labor coming from me.
Hi Meritocracy,
Thanks for the followup comment. I really appreciate your point of view.
However, I think your understanding of taxes might not be complete. In particular, I take issue with this comment: “…so that I can finally start seeing a return on all the taxes I pay.”
The issue is that, whether you realize it or not, you ARE benefitting from all of the taxes you pay right now, with or without children. Let me explain.
Taxes are the price you pay to maintain the society in which you are currently living. You said you’re a patent attorney. Taxes help maintain a society where people can live and work in order to buy the goods from companies that you represent in order to make your living. It’s not always a direct line, but without taxes, people would not be able to live the lives they live in this country. There’s a price you pay in order for your job to event exist in this country, and that price is higher taxes.
Another example: Taxes associated with schools. Crime is lower in areas with good school districts. Taxes help pay for better schools. And regardless of having a kid in that school, you’re benefitting from that by not having your house broken into. You’re benefitting from being able to walk down the street without fear of being harassed by gags. You could also benefit by many of the sports programs or other events that schools usually host.
Another example: Healthcare. If we had higher taxes in order to pay for better healthcare, the country as a whole would have a much stronger workforce because people would be healthier overall and better able to work. This would allow more people to buy the goods and services from companies that you represent which would allow you to charge more. This one might be heavily debated, but this is what I firmly believe. Additionally, I don’t know if you work at a law firm or for yourself, but if you work for yourself, I bet healthcare is one of your biggest expenses.
The point is that I believe you are thinking about taxes too narrowly. If you don’t *directly* benefit from them, then they don’t make sense. However, society is WAY more complex than that. There are so many indirect relationships that are very hard to draw direct links between.
Lastly, when thinking about whether or not you’d work for a marginal tax rate of 40% or not, think about this: What is the absolute minimum you’d work for per hour? As long as taxes don’t go below that number, you’re better off working. I’m sure you’ve done the math, but here’s how I think about it:
Say you make $100/hr, but you personally value your time at $50/hr. As long as you’re making more than $50/hr, then it makes sense to keep going. It’s just bonus when it’s more. A 40% tax rate will still bring in $60/hr.
Sam is in an interesting position because his time is valuable because he has a family. Whatever number he assigns to his family time is the opportunity cost associated with working. As soon as taxes bring his income below that, then it doesn’t make sense to keep working. However, as a single person, I think that number is substantially lower compared to someone like Sam.
Using myself as an example, there’s really no number where I can definitely say that I shouldn’t work. My goal is to hit a specific number where I can stop working entirely. Every hour, regardless of the marginal tax rate, is more money towards that goal. I suspect your goal is similar, but if it’s not, please let me know. I would love to hear your perspective on this.
Capitalists do not need to worry. It is possible to have a capitalist society and healthcare for all. As for costs, our current system is wasteful and as bureacratic as “big government”.
I may be biased because I have a special needs child but I hope that enough people have compassion for others and don’t put profit before human beings.
Libertarians might need to worry.
I guess this is a nice thought experiment but last time I checked Biden had the Dem nomination locked up and Bernie is toast. Talk about a moot subject, why?
There are still over 1000 delegates needed to get 1,991 to be the Democratic nominee. You never know.
But I guess you are right. Why bother thinking and planning for anything. It takes too much effort. Good to just go with the flow.
Lots of the comments seem to discuss the trade-offs between having more healthcare coverage and paying more in taxes.
The third variable in the equation is the total US budget deficit, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office currently projects to be $1.0 Trillion for 2020, or nearly 2x as much as it was in 2016 before Trump was elected.
Would you be ok increasing the budget deficit beyond $1.0 Trillion if it meant more people had healthcare? If not, are you ok with the deficit being $1T now?
Unfortunately, I think the deficit is so great and intangible that it is beyond average comprehension. A group of people understand what a billion means, an even smaller handful understands what a trillion means or looks like. Whether the debt is 1T or 1.5T, I’m not sure people even understand or care at this point.
A lot of people work for financially-unhealthy companies and run financially-unhealthy households, not sure an unhealthy government to any degree is a concern for many.
I like to think I have a clue, and honestly, I’m not sure of the real impact of a 1T vs. 1.5T debt, other than I clearly understand the difference numerically-speaking. But due to the complexity of the machine and intertwined nature of the system across the world, I’m unsure of real-world consequences of another 500B.
First of all, the majority of Americans (90 to 95 percents) do not understand the word “Capitalism”.
Just because the United States have the most billionaires, most people assumed that the country is operating at full speed with capitalism.
If you have a chance, do visit developing country such as Vietnam – where more than 50 percents of the population are self-employed and negligible social programs for the extreme poverty, you will place America on a different shade of the socialism and capitalism spectrum.
Second, the majority of Americans vote on feelings and not technical – they are conditioned to act and behave in accordance to their feelings. Otherwise, 90 percents of Americans will vote for Bernie Sanders.
Whereas, the minority wealthy Americans vote on technical – they built the social structure and conditioned the mass to live within.
America is and will continue to be the greatest nation as long as racism is under control!
One useful way to look at a question is to flip it, i.e. “Should Socialists Really Be Afraid of a Donald Trump Presidency?”
All the social-media engineered ‘hating points’ of 2016 came to nothing. Things turned out pretty good. So is it possible to answer this question without being triggered into a hate-rant? We shall see, in the fullness of time.;-)
Yep, he’s doing a fantastic job of locking children in cages. Truly top notch child locking-up.
meanwhile we have socialism for the rich, and socialism to bail out farmers and no one bats an eye
As a brit living in Europe, all I can say is that universal healthcare is great. If you want private health insurance on top of that, more power to you and it’s certainly allowed. Americans end up paying hugely over the odds for the same drugs and treatments available in other developed countries because health is a business, not a service, in the states.
Sure – I work as a healthcare analyst in the US and I’ve learned a lot about the systems in other countries. I personally don’t like the government deeming what is less valuable vs. more valuable, encouraging physicians to practice this way vs. that way, encouraging consumers to be compelled to buy a defined product, and putting price controls on what each procedure “should” cost. I believe that prices though millions of individuals is the key to success w/ the government being the referee. Once the U.S. goes this route we close off other options, trying new things, and inhibits innovation, creativity, evolution, and learning. It not as simple as business vs service.
It does seem to make sense to have universal healthcare and then pay extra for private health insurance. A healthy society is a strong society. But I don’t see as much wealth and innovation coming out of Europe as I do in the U.S.
I think the reason is due to the tax and incentive structure here. What do you think? Why aren’t more Italians, Spaniards, and Greeks creating the next major life-changing technology?
Granted, the USA is doing a better job of innovation than a lot of the world, but is a combination of factors. Also, innovation is concentrated in a few areas that do massively well. Not a lot of world-changing technology is coming out of Idaho, Mississippi or Alabama I’d say, despite having similar tax and health policies. Healthcare for people at a reasonable cost will not suddenly turn the USA into a backwater! You already have no problem with socialised military, police and schooling, why not health?
I don’t understand why anyone would want to give more power to the government. In terms of the business perspective, they are the absolute worst at managing/spending money on both sides of the aisle. Until they actually fix the system, balance the budget and get out of debt they don’t deserve another dime of tax money.
People in government want to give more power to government. And people who feel they are struggling to keep of the average are hopeful the government can keep them a boost. Not everybody is so lucky as to outperform.
However, man, the government is so darn inefficient.
Here’s my rattling manhole story.
https://www.financialsamurai.com/are-you-getting-your-moneys-worth-on-the-taxes-you-pay/
One area I never see discussed by any of Bernie’s supporters or others who proclaim taxing the wealthy is the removal of charitable deductions. Currently anyone can write off up to 60% of their AGI for charitable deductions effectively resulting in only 40% of your income being taxed. Even at Bernie’s highest rate of 70% you would effectively only be paying 28% of your AGI in taxes. Many of the ultra wealthy like Gates, Bloomberg, Zuckerberg, etc. give large amounts to charities and tax free foundations. When Hillary released a tax return for the 2016 contest, it showed she had given 1,000,000 to her husband’s own foundation (interestingly enough that was her only charitable deduction). As long as these loopholes remain, the talk of the wealthy paying more in taxes, is simply without merit and only intended for the masses who have very little understanding of the tax code. Clearly all of these individuals believe they can make better choices as to how their money is spent rather than giving it to the government.
I wouldn’t get too worked up about it, either way.
Bernie is unlikely to be much good at sneaky stuff so I expect both parties in both branches of Congress, as well as the Supreme Court, and the Constitution would have ample opportunity to render most of his agenda moot.
I also think that, although he very well might get on the Democrats’ ticket, a candidate that would let the incumbent office holder present himself as a moderate will likely give a lot of people pause when it actually comes time to vote.