Sanders targets highest-income Americans with 'extreme wealth tax' and 'national wealth registry'

[brooklynite]

Politico

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday proposed an “extreme wealth tax” on the highest-income Americans, along with a “national wealth registry” that he said would help prevent them from avoiding the tax.

The tax rate would start at 1 percent on net worth of more than $32 million and rise with income above that, topping out at 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion.

Sanders’ Democratic presidential campaign said the tax would raise $4.35 trillion over a decade and would be used to fund "Medicare for All", along with his plans for affordable housing and universal childcare.

Several of the other Democratic presidential candidates have proposed slapping additional taxes on the highest-income households. Sanders, an independent from Vermont, had already proposed a major hike in estate taxes and raising the top marginal tax rate on income above $10 million.

[BeyondGeography]

1. That will just reinforce Warren as the more realistic progressive alternative

Which is fine.

[CentralMass]

11. Senator Warren does have her own plans to tax the rich

Here is another article with details on both of their plans as well as those of a few other democrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/24/business/economy/wealth-tax-rich.html

On one extreme we have Reagonomics that save the Clinton years has dominated our tax policies. It has lead us to a $22,6 trillion dollar national debt. The republicans use that debt and our pepetual budgets deficits as leverage to "starve the beast". They use it to justify cuts in domestic spending and particulary spending on social programs.

I like both Senators Sanders and Warren and IMO both would require gaining control of the Senate and keeping the House to be effective.

I support them both and running on a tax plan that would fund the government and and programs that would help millions of struggling Americans who are struggling to survive is a good thing. It is where we should be heading as a country.

[BeyondGeography]

12. I'm glad he has come out with this

It's long past time for a wealth tax. Sanders has lots of bully in his pulpit and knows how to use it.

To wit, both or either of them should hammer away at the "why." It's not just because they need money to fund their plans. Wealth has effectively been stolen from the workforce through stock buybacks and dividend schemes that have plowed 94% of every corporate profit dollar, profits that all workers helped generate, back to the top shareholders. That's how we get an economy that grows while most Americans see their financial position go sideways or deteriorate. If profits had been equitably distributed during the long and destructive Milton Friedman-inspired era of shareholder "values" we wouldn't need to bail out working- and middle-class people. Taxing income and/or capital gains at a higher rate going forward does nothing to address the damage.

[JI7]

2. isn't this what he always does ? someone proposes something and he comes out with same but even

BIGGER AND BETTER ...........

[Skidmore]

4. Yup.

Not the type of thinker I'm looking for, someone who includes others in planning and gives credit where it is due.I also want a thinker who recognizes practicality of idea for implementation and just not as a tool for ideological expediency.

[Botany]

3. Scoop: Bernie's next move

Drop out?

[we can do it]

5. Oh my.

[Celerity]

13. the LAST thing a Biden supporter should want is for Sanders to drop out now, as he's doing major

blocking of Warren. The tricky part is how to keep his supporters on board for Biden when Bernie inevitably loses. If he is battered too hard, his supporters will leave in much higher numbers than if it is perceived he was fairly defeated. His supporters (not talking DU) this time around are FAR less actual Democratic voters and FAR more radical than in 2016. The only good thing is that they are far smaller in number as well in 2020 versus 2016.

I did a large analysis of defections (those who went to the Rethugs, or 3rd party, or simply stayed home) for Clinton primary supporters in 2008 versus Sanders primary supporters in 2016. Clinton had a higher defection rate (30% or so of her 2008 primary voters did not vote for Obama in the general) in 2008 than Bernie in 2016 (and yes I even dealt with Operation Chaos in 2008, which was far smaller than many assume, and I pulled them out of the calculations as they were Rethugs to begin with) BUT I can see the Bernie supporters smashing those two rates this time around. The only saving grace is that even at a 40% defection rate (again defection via either to a 3rd party, to Rump, or simply stay home/not vote), the absolute number of Sanders defections will be much lower overall, and you will not (hopefully!) see anything like the straight defection rate from Hillary to McCain like we saw in 2008 (22% to 24% after Operation Chaos voters are subtracted out.) Sanders people will more than likely go to a third party or stay home. I do not see a large percentage (some will of course, but it should be a small number) do the suicidal double-down and pulling the lever for Rump.

[George II]

6. This is becoming a high-stakes poker game - "I'll see your proposal and raise you $16 billion.".....

Except he's using taxpayer's money.

[beastie boy]

7. Sounds familiar... oh yeah, go Warren!

[George II]

8. "The tax rate would start at 1 percent on net worth of more than $32 million....

....and rise with income above that."

Like he does with health insurance and health care, he's mixing two things. On the one hand he talks about "net worth" and then "income". Which is it?

Most older people have significant net worth, but very low income.

Very sloppy proposal.

[aidbo]

15. That is just how the politico writer explained Bernie's plan. What a weird nit picky response.

You claim that Sanders is “mixing two things”.

But that line you claim is a quote is just a quote from the article, not something that Sanders said.

[George II]

17. Not nit-picky at all. Net worth and income are completely different. Someone could own....

...a house worth $500,000 (net worth) and other assets (net worth) and only early $60,000 a year (income).

On the other hand, as I've pointed out elsewhere, a tax on "net worth" that is recurring will result in billions or trillions of dollars leaving the country.

But this is all essentially moot anyway, that tax will never be passed, even under Democratic majorities in both houses.

[aidbo]

18. Lol, you're trying to cover it up, but what you thought was Bernie's plan was just how some..

..writer from politico characterized it (incorrectly).

Your attempt to deflect from your mistake is laughable, just own up to it.

I know wealth is different from income, so does Bernie.

Apparently, this reporter thinks that they can be conflated. And in your rush to call Bernie’s plan “sloppy”, you just exposed yourself as sloppy.

[aidbo]

16. Lol, very sloppy complaint.

[SharonClark]

9. "national wealth registry" sounds ominous

What he fails to realize is that most American would rather be wealthy than poor and would rather hang out/identify with the wealthy than the poor.

He has the subtly of a sledge hammer.

[NurseJackie]

10. Yes it does... and hopefully it will frighten primary voters as much as it would GE voters.

It's easy to see that the BS campaign is responding to their ever-declining polling numbers. At this point, he should just cut his losses and withdraw... and RETURN THE DONATIONS.

[CentralMass]

14. Many more are struggling to live.

[George II]

19. A "national registry"? I think we know what cans of worms this would open.

[zackymilly]

20. Remember when Bernie was poor & hated millionaires? Now he's a millionaire & hates billionaires.

What a phony he is.
I can't believe people fall for this.