Documents show Bernie wanted a top tax rate of 100%: "nobody should earn more than $1 million"

[Cali_Democrat]

In the 1970's, when he was a candidate for Senate, Sanders told the Burlington Free Press that "nobody should earn more than $1 million."

By Jennifer Epstein

------------------------------------
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders distanced himself from the Eisenhower-era top marginal tax rate of 90 percent during last week’s Democratic presidential debate, but as he prepares to detail his support of democratic socialism in a major speech Thursday, documents from his past show him supporting an even higher rate of taxation on the nation's highest earners.

In several articles dating back to the early 1970s, Sanders is described as supporting a top marginal tax of 100 percent for high earners or the establishment of a maximum wage.

During Saturday’s debate in Des Moines, Sanders said “we haven’t come up with an exact number yet” for the top tax rate “but it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was 90 percent.” “I’m not as socialist compared to Eisenhower,” he added.

<...>

In a 1974 article titled “Concentrated Wealth Is Causing Economic Illness,” from an unidentified newspaper that was in his papers at the University of Vermont library, Sanders is described as wanting to “make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime.” He would do that, the article said, with “a 100 percent tax on incomes above this level ($ one million per year)” and “would recycle this money for the public need.”

Also in 1974, when Sanders was the Liberty Union’s candidate for Senate in Vermont, he told the Burlington Free Press that “nobody should earn more than $1 million,” a line that was mentioned in passing in a July story in Politico. The Sanders campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Read more:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-18/bernie-sanders-flirted-with-100-percent-marginal-tax-on-the-rich-maximum-wage

[Kalidurga]

1. So

[Cali_Democrat]

7. I don't know of any industrialized country that does this.

Certainly not Denmark.

In my opinion, it's a pretty lonely position to be taking.

[Kalidurga]

8. Well I had no idea that Bernie was still thinking about 1 million in terms

of today's dollars and today's economy.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. Believe me, Cali_Democrat also has no idea. His mission is accomplished when he posts the OP.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. Exactly.

Cha Ching!

[Autumn]

26. When you consider tax deductions a 100% tax on the wealthy ain't so bad

[Kalidurga]

27. 100% after 5.3 million isn't bad either with deductions.

[Autumn]

28. To read some posts here you would think that the wealthy paying taxes is just

cruel and mean. But only if Bernie suggests it or if at some time in his life suggested it, or if he was in a room where those words were used, by people at opposite ends of the room.

[daleanime]

32. ........

[Kalidurga]

43. I remember a time when taxes wasn't a bad word

It started to become a dirty word sometime in June I think. I don't know why.

[Cheese Sandwich]

2. FDR proposed a 100% top tax rate, and compromised to 94%

The top rate should be 100%.

If Bernie said that he was right.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. People need to be reminded of FDR constantly

[RobertEarl]

3. The world would be better if we had

Now is there a real chance to have a better world if we can just get Bernie elected.

[Travis_0004]

4. That is stupid

I'm not against higher tax rates, but a tax rate of 100% is absurd.

[pangaia]

5. DITTO Kalidurga...

SO ?

With my own 2 cents..

WHAT ?

[notadmblnd]

6. so something he was flirting with 50 years ago means his views are the same today?

[mcar]

10. According to some DUers

The fact that HRC was a Goldwater girl as a teenager 50 years ago is quite significant. So which is it? Does a politician evolve or not?

[notadmblnd]

15. I would be more likely to question some of her more recent evolutions than those of 50 years ago

However, I've never said a word about what she believed 50 years ago.

[jeff47]

19. And the OP complains mightily when that happens.

Yet here she is doing the same thing. Guess it's OK now.

[mcar]

20. As is her right as a member of this board. And Sanders supporters

Who outnumber HRC supporters by about an 8-1 margin on this board, bring up that point again and again with impunity.

I see it several times a week here, at minimum. This is the first time I've seen this point.

[jeff47]

21. It was posted about 3 times in the early summer.

But more importantly, some people like to not be hypocritical.

[senz]

40. All rightwingers are hypocrites.

[LiberalArkie]

29. It was around the same time frame wasn't it as Cali's point. What's the big deal. Bernie wanting

100% tax and Hillary Diane Rodham wanting Barry Goldwater.

[Eric J in MN]

9. A million then is about 5 million now. NT

NT

[senz]

42. Mustn't confuse anyone with facts, now. nt

[undergroundpanther]

11. before is the one serious about helping.

A Wealth limit via taxation would bring back a decent social safety net, Schools would have a budget, We may have a transportation system that rivals Europe so people might not use their cars so much. Imagine free tv like there was before cable who sold itself on the lie about its promise to be commercial free, how about free TV with many stations run by independent owners? Imagine banks regulated and corporations regulated and and not allowed to be monopolies..These corporate would be having less of a voice on politics. Over profitable destructive oil companies not getting subsidies anymore and made to clean up their mess. Breakout ,disabled people not living hand to mouth.While hoping their insurance isn't playing games this week.Or having to compete with 15,20year wait lists to get section 8 housing in the shittiest neighborhoods. Imagine a real pension, Reasonable,housing and rental costs. Imagine your healthcare no longer tied to employment,could you imagine wages that were liveable? If the top 1. % were taxed properly they could never buy our government like they have done,Oligarchy fancy themselves better than us,they become aristocrats,basically traitors to democracy. Founders of this country and
plenty to say about the dangers of entrenched wealth. Those lessons were not lost on Bernie. GO BERNIE!

[JaneyVee]

12. Crazy.

[notadmblnd]

17. Crazy- if one believes that he holds the EXACT SAME VIEW as 50 years ago.

I mean really, how much does one person/family need?

[JaneyVee]

18. 50 years ago? Article says he was floating it in the 90s.

Also, would you tell a person how much food they need?

[Kalidurga]

23. Science is pretty good at telling people how much food they need.

But, it can take some tweeking to figure out how much a person needs in reality vs calculations. Just like everything else in life.

[notadmblnd]

25. Sure I would.

I have often told people that they need to eat something. I had a cousin that wasn't gaining weight during her pregnancy. I did in fact tell her what and how much too eat. I also prepared it for her. I did all but sit on her and stuff the food in her mouth. I've also told my son that if he doesn't want to end up looking like his mother (me) and have the same serious health issue as I do, that he better cut back. But I digress.

I seriously doubt that Senator Sanders still holds the exact same view that an individual should be limited to making only 1 million a year- as a million does not go very far these days.

But yes, I do wonder how much a person/family needs. Especially when they have more money than their current family and descendants could ever possibly need or spend. After all, no one get to take it with them when they die.

On edit:

Pizzigati, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, said that he and Sanders discussed the concept of a maximum wage in conversations in the early 1990s. “He thought that this was something that needed to be explored and considered,” Pizzigati said

if the above is the reference you are making in your post to me. It does not say that he wanted to limit wages in the 90's. It says he said it was a concept to have a conversation about. Not exactly the same thing, no?

[RichVRichV]

31. Well he said he was looking below 90% in the last debate.

Is that recent enough for you?



And FDR proposed a 100% top tax bracket (settling for 94%). It's not as crazy as you think it is. Especially once deductions are taken into account.

[senz]

48. No Janey. The 1970s.

[jeff47]

14. And? (nt)

[restorefreedom]

16. wow from the 70's?

why isn't this in lbn?

should we start posting what hillary was saying 50 years ago?

no, that would be smearing......

[senz]

37. Amazing, isn't it?

Smugness does not couple well with desperation.

[restorefreedom]

45. if frequency was an indicator, it would. nt

[Matariki]

38. You mean back when she was a Republican?

lol

[restorefreedom]

47. yeah. guessing some would not want to go that far back. nt

[Hydra]

24. And...what?

A million dollars was a ton of money back then. I'd be fine with an equivalent $$ amount now as long as it's on ALL forms of income and wealth transfer, not just working income.

You may have tried to get a better shock title- most of us here will never see $1 Million income in a year, or even close. I don't even make 2.5% of that.

[PowerToThePeople]

30. I agree with him. n/t

[Juicy_Bellows]

34. That clocks in at about 4.8 million according to inflation calculator.

Seems reasonable to me.

[MFrohike]

35. Persistent server error when I click on the link

Odd.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. Working fine for me. nt

[Matariki]

36. At my state's 1988 caucus, people voted on a 100% tax on income above $200,000

as part of the Democratic party platform.

So 1970s stuff, whatever.

[Armstead]

41. Goddamn Commies Everywhere. Under my bed....Everywhere!

[senz]

44. I thought he said it would be WELL BELOW Eisenhower's top rate. Here's the chart.

Reagan (and, apparently certain Hillary supporters) will surely disapprove, but here are the top marginal income tax rates from 1912 to 2008:

[MaggieD]

46. Good thing he isn't getting elected.

LOL! What a nut.