DECEMBER 22,
2019
NEWS AND VIEWS
WHO ARE THE 300 SANDERS ENDORSERS? THIS ARTICLE BREAKS IT DOWN A LITTLE, AND FEATURES A FEW OF THEM. I’D
LIKE TO SEE MORE DETAIL ON THIS STORY.
Sanders rolls
out over 300 California endorsements
BY TAL AXELROD
- 12/21/19 03:15 PM EST
Sen. Bernie
Sanders’s (I-Vt.) presidential campaign rolled out more than 300 endorsements
from California as it seeks to gin up support in the crucial Super Tuesday
state.
The campaign
released endorsements from 40 elected officials, more than 80 community leaders
and more than 200 academics in the Golden State as polls show a tight race in
the California primary.
Among the
endorsers are city council members, mayors, town supervisors, professors of
political science and history, and activists from LGBTQ, environmental and
civil rights groups. The latest list builds on 86 earlier California
endorsements from union groups and other local officials.
“Having fought
for the rights and dignity of working immigrant women for two decades, I
trust Bernie Sanders to be a champion for justice for all of us,” said Oakland
City Council member Nikki Bas. “Our nation needs a bold, principled leader who
will end status quo politics and put the needs of everyday people before
corporate profits.”
“Bernie Sanders
has been explicitly articulating every single thing that we have been fighting
for our entire lives,” added Los Angeles City Council member Gil Cedillo. “Our
nation needs a revolutionary movement and there is no other viable candidate to
carry out our agenda backed by our core values. I stood with Bernie in 2016,
and I am even more proud to stand with him today and endorse his candidacy as
the next President of the United States.”
The
announcement of the endorsements comes ahead of a rally Sanders will hold with progressive
firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in Los Angeles on
Saturday.
California is
one of several states that hold their primaries or caucuses on March 3, dubbed
Super Tuesday because of the number of nominating contests held that day. The
Golden State is set to allocate a whopping 495 delegates based on the primary’s
result, making the race a top target for front-runners to cement their
standing or for middle-tier candidates to make up ground.
Polling shows
Sanders in a tightly packed top tier in the California primary with former Vice
President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The RealClearPolitics
polling average in the state shows Biden with 21.2 percent, Sanders with 21
percent and Warren with 19.6 percent.
BERNIE SANDERS ALWAYS
USES THE CONTROVERSIAL TERM “POLITICAL REVOLUTION,” BY WHICH HE MEANS AT LEAST TWO
THINGS: IT WILL BE A SERIES OF REAL CHANGES EMERGING FROM A NONVIOLENT GRASSROOTS
MOVEMENT, THAT WILL AFFECT HOW LIFE IN THE USA WILL BE CARRIED OUT FOR MOST
AMERICANS. HIS PLAN WILL ADDRESS ELIMINATING THE USE OF CARBON BASED FUELS AS
OPPOSED TO WIND AND SOLAR, MEDICARE-FOR-ALL, EDUCATION FROM PRE-K TO COLLEGE OR
TRADE SCHOOL, COST OF LIVING ISSUES SUCH AS CHILDCARE, FAIRNESS ISSUES SUCH AS
THE $15 AN HOUR MINIMUM WAGE AND EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK, HOUSING FOR ALL, BREAKING
UP MONOPOLIES, AND MORE. IT ISN’T THE WORK OF A YEAR OR A PRESIDENTIAL TERM,
BUT A PRESIDENT CAN START TO ROW THE BOAT IN ANOTHER DIRECTION THAT WILL
BENEFIT MOST PEOPLE RATHER THAN A FEW. IT WILL BE UP TO THOSE WHO COME AFTER
AND TO CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS TO CONTINUE CARRYING THOSE THINGS OUT.
WHAT I AM QUESTIONING
HERE IS THE WRITER’S HINTING, OR SEEMING TO WITH THOSE QUOTATION MARKS, THAT THE
SANDERS MESSAGE IS ONE THAT ENDANGERS US AS A NATION AND IS “UNFAIR” TO THE
DEFACTO RULERS IN THIS COUNTRY. THOSE SUPERWEALTHY PEOPLE DON’T NEED HELP, AND BUSINESSES
THAT ARE “TOO BIG TO FAIL” NEED TO BE BROKEN UP INTO MANY SMALLER UNITS SO A
HEALTHY COMPETITION CAN COME TO PASS.
WE NEED LARGER
AND HEALTHIER LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITIES, NOT JUST INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS WHICH
SHIPS WHAT SHOULD BE OUR JOBS OVERSEES TO FIND LABOR THERE WHO WILL WORK FOR
ONE OR TWO DOLLARS AN HOUR, OR MAYBE EVEN A DAY. IT MAY BE “GOOD BUSINESS” FOR
THE COMPANY, BUT IT ISN’T GOOD BUSINESS FOR THE COUNTRY.
SANDERS IS
REFERRING, BY “POLITICAL REVOLUTION,” TO METHODS TO MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR THOSE
WHO ARE FINANCIALLY AFFLICTED AND ENSURE MORE OPENNESS FOR ALL. HE ADVOCATES
ONE MAN ONE VOTE, WHICH I ALWAYS HAVE AS WELL. WE DON’T NEED A DARNED “ELECTORAL
COLLEGE” OR ANY “SUPERDELEGATES” TO DILLUTE THE EFFECT OF THE POPULAR VOTE,
I.E., THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE. CHANGE, WHETHER WE WISH TO CALL IT A REVOLUTION
OR A MANDATE, IS HEALTHY AND GOOD, AND ANY MULTI-MILLIONAIRE OR BILLIONAIRE CAN
CERTAINLY AFFORD TO PAY A REASONABLE TAX ON HIS ACCUMULATED WEALTH TO FINANCE SOCIETY’S
NEEDS. IN SANDERS’ PLAN, THE WEALTH TAX WOULD BE 1% TO 8% BASED ON THE LEVEL OF
WEALTH, AND STARTING AT $32 MILLION. PERSONALLY, I WOULD START IT MUCH EARLIER
THAN THAT. THIRTY-TWO MILLION IS A LOT OF DOLLARS, AND MORE THAN ANYONE NEEDS. START
THE TAX AT TEN MILLION.
FOR AN INTERESTING
BIT ON REVOLUTIONS, SEE THIS ARTICLE ON THOMAS JEFFERSON.
WHILE WE’RE
REFORMING THINGS, WE ALSO NEED TO GET A HANDLE AS A PEOPLE ON IDEAS LIKE “MONEY
IS SPEECH,” OR “CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE.” AS FOR THE COMPETITIVE URGE THAT IS
BASIC TO THE GREED FOR EVER MORE AND MORE WEALTH, THE RICH CAN STILL BE RICH AT $32
MILLION. THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THERE BEING A RISK OF IMPOVERISHING THOSE PEOPLE IS
REALLY RIDICULOUS, AND FOR AMERICANS TO GO ALONG WITH THE IDEA IS FOOLISHNESS.
AS FOR BERNIE’S
RALLY AT VENICE BEACH, THIS ARTICLE DOESN’T GIVE A NUMERICAL ESTIMATE ON HOW
MANY PEOPLE ATTENDED THE RALLY, BUT IT DESCRIBES IT AS “MASSIVE.” WHILE THE NEW
YORK TIMES OR THE WASHINGTON POST MAY BE IGNORING SANDERS, NOT EVERY NEWS SOURCE
IS, AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE STILL FINDING A WAY TO ATTEND HIS ACTIVITIES. I
THINK HE’S DOING WELL.
Bernie Sanders
Vows “Political Revolution” At Massive Venice Beach Rally
By Anita
Bennett
December 21,
2019 5:26pm
PHOTOGRAPH –
SANDERS SPEAKING INTO THE MICROPHONE Shutterstock
From the looks
of things, Bernie Sanders has a huge following in Southern California.
The Vermont
senator drew a massive crowd to his beachfront rally Saturday afternoon
in Venice, as he continued his six-day campaign swing through the Golden State.
The 2020
Democratic presidential contender was surrounded by thousands of enthusiastic
supporters as he took to the podium under cloudy skies.
“Our campaign
is not only about defeating Trump, our campaign is about a political
revolution,” Sanders told the crowd. “It is about transforming this country,
it is about creating a government and an economy that works for all people and
not just the one percent.”
PHOTOGRAPH -- Bernie
Sanders Rally. Venice, USA - 21 Dec 2019 Democratic presidential candidate Sen.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., greet the
crowd during a rally in Venice, Calif 21 Dec 2019
PHOTOGRAPH -- Sanders
was introduced by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Shutterstock
Sanders said
his campaign has received “more contributions from more people than any
candidate in the history of the United States of America.”
“We don’t have
a Super-PAC, we don’t want a Super-PAC,” he stated. “We don’t go to rich
people’s wine caves. This is a campaign of the working class of this
country, by the working class and for the working class.”
Joining the
senator were local politicians, actor and activist Tim Robbins, author
Cornel West, and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who introduced
Sanders.
It’s “really
nice to get out of the freezing cold in New York and Washington, D.C.,”
Ocasio-Cortez said before striking a more serious tone.
“We’re going to
change this country,” she said. “This is a movement decades in the making.”
PHOTOGRAPH -- Sanders
greets supporters and signs autographs.
Shutterstock
Added Robbins,
“I’m here today to endorse Bernie Sanders to be the next president of the
United States.”
The rally had a
family friendly vibe, with some attendees bringing along their children and
pets.
There was also
entertainment, with the bands Young the Giant, Local Natives, and Jesse &
Joy performing before the rally got underway.
The gathering
came after Thursday’s Democratic debate at Loyola Marymount University in
nearby Westchester. Campaign manager Faiz Shakir told the media Friday that
Sanders raised more than $1 million on the day of the debate.
City News
Service contributed to this report.
MORE ON THE
REVOLUTION, OR STEPS TOWARD IT, COMES FROM CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS.
MEDIABIAS GIVES IT A FAR LEFT BIAS RATING. IT IS A PRODUCT OF THE MODERATE WING
OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THOUGH, SO I SUPPOSE MEDIABIAS WOULD CONSIDER BERNIE
SANDERS OFF THE RECORDABLE RANGE. THIS ARTICLE IS FROM FEBRUARY 2019.
Here’s How Much
America’s Rising Income Inequality Is Costing Social Security
By Rachel West
Posted on February 13, 2019, 7:00 am
PHOTOGRAPH -- Getty/Chip
Somodevilla
U.S. President
Donald Trump talks to reporters during a meeting with members of his cabinet,
February 2019.
Just a few
weeks into the 116th Congress, Democrats’ takeover of the House of
Representatives has already exposed the huge gulf between what American voters
want and what the previous House leadership and the Trump administration have
thrust upon them in recent years. Congressional Democrats’ bold agenda—such as
higher taxes on the rich, universal health care, and expanding Social
Security—has strong support not just among progressives but also across party
lines. This popularity is a direct rebuke to Trump’s and his congressional
colleagues’ massive 2017 tax giveaway to the wealthy and corporations; Trump’s
ongoing efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicaid; and
Trump’s and congressional Republicans’ continued efforts to cut Social
Security.
Perhaps nowhere
is the gulf between voters’ wishes and the policies Trump and his colleagues in
Congress are pursuing greater than when it comes to Social Security—a program
that voters overwhelmingly want to see expanded rather than cut. A 2017 Pew
Research Center poll found that 95 percent of Democrats and 86 percent of
Republicans preferred to maintain or expand Social Security. Yet, despite
promising not to cut Social Security on the campaign trail, President Donald
Trump’s fiscal year 2019 budget would have slashed $72 billion from the program—cruelly
targeting people with disabilities—over the coming decade. And Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) didn’t
even wait until the ink was dry on their $2 trillion tax giveaway to begin
insisting that everyday Americans face cuts to Social Security to pay for their
deficit-busting tax bill.
Fortunately,
American voters finally have champions in the growing chorus of Democratic
lawmakers calling for expanding Social Security. Their approach fits seamlessly
into the growing calls for higher taxes on the wealthy from congressional
leaders and 2020 presidential contenders: It pairs benefit increases with
commonsense revenue raisers such as lifting the payroll tax cap so that higher
earners pay into Social Security all year, just like other workers do. This is
a move that more than two-thirds of Americans support and reflects the common
desire of both voters and progressive policymakers to tackle the nation’s
sky-high inequality by putting everyday workers and families—not the
uber-rich—first.
Rising
inequality has not only threatened working families’ economic security—making
Social Security’s modest benefits all the more critical—it has also actively
damaged Social Security’s financial outlook. This analysis updates earlier CAP
analyses to illustrate how much rising inequality has harmed Social Security’s
finances since 1983—the last time major changes were made to the program. (see
earlier versions for methodology) We first show how policymakers’ failure to
address rising inequality benefits rich Americans, including millionaire and
billionaire earners as well as President Trump. Second, we show how Social
Security’s combined retirement and disability trust funds would have contained
$1.4 trillion more by the end of 2017 if policymakers had kept the payroll tax
fixed at 90 percent of earnings rather than letting an increasing share of rich
Americans’ income go untaxed every year. Finally, we show that the trust funds’
assets would have been $570 billion greater by the end of 2017 if the average
worker’s pay had grown in step with their productivity since 1983 instead of
the paltry pay gains they actually experienced.
A second
Valentine’s Day for millionaire and billionaire earners, including President Trump
The vast
majority of working Americans will contribute to Social Security with every
paycheck they earn. This includes even the lowest-paid workers—those who earn
the federal minimum wage of just $7.25 per hour—who haven’t seen a raise in 10
years. But, ironically, it’s America’s highest earners—those who can most
readily afford to contribute—whom policymakers have chosen to give a break. In
2019, every dollar they earn above the payroll tax cap of $132,900 will escape
Social Security payroll taxes entirely.
As a result,
while roughly 94 percent of workers contributed the full 12.4 percent of their
annual earnings toward Social Security taxes in recent years—with half paid by
the worker and half by their employer—America’s highest earners pay only a small
share of their income. That includes President Trump who—if his claims about
his 2016 income are true—contributed a mere 0.002 percent of his income to
Social Security in 2016. In other words, Trump pocketed an additional $86
million simply because policymakers have not required higher earners such as
him to contribute payroll taxes at the same rate as everyone else, including
the nation’s lowest-paid workers. It would take nearly 22,000 additional
workers earning the median salary to make up for the contributions he avoids.
February 18 is
Valentine’s Day for millionaires, the day when last of the millionaires in the
United States will stop contributing to Social Security for the entirety of
2019.
Policymakers’
sweetheart deal for high earners means the richest Americans celebrate their
own special holiday early in the year. February 18 is Valentine’s Day for
millionaires, the day when last of the millionaires in the United States will stop contributing to Social Security for
the entirety of 2019. The richer they are, the earlier their gift arrives:
Based on his 2016 income, President Trump ceased contributing to Social
Security just 40 minutes into the new year. Similarly, for many in Trump’s rich
donor circles and in his “$2 billion Cabinet,” time spent paying into Social
Security is measured in just minutes or days.
This gift comes
on the cusp of tax season—when the richest Americans will reap their first year
of massive benefits from the last Congress’ $2 trillion tax law. The tax law’s
handouts underscore how skyrocketing salaries capture only part of the inequality
picture. In addition to earnings inequality, inequality has grown on the basis
of wealth as well as the capital income that, while almost negligible for the
vast majority of Americans, makes up more than one-quarter of the top 1
percent’s income.
Meanwhile, on
the other side of the inequality equation, a huge swath of everyday
Americans—more than 4 in 10—are struggling to afford the even basics such as
food, housing, health care, and transportation in today’s economy. For the many
working families living paycheck to paycheck, Social Security’s modest benefits
are more important than ever as a bedrock of economic security in the event of
retirement or disability.
3 ways income
inequality harms Social Security’s finances
For American
workers and their families, Social Security has provided the foundation of
economic security for more than 80 years and counting. In 2018, roughly 63
million Americans received retirement, disability, or survivor benefits through
the Social Security system. The program’s modest benefits are nothing short of
vital—particularly for women and workers of color—making up at least 50 percent
of family income for more than half of seniors and roughly 8 in 10 workers with
disabilities in recent years.
With everyday
Americans facing a looming retirement crisis; flat pay and a diminishing
minimum wage; and rapidly rising costs for a basic middle-class lifestyle,
Social Security’s benefits will become even more important in future years.
However, a small slice of high-income workers are pulling far away from these
hardships and challenges, as their earnings disproportionately increase
compared to those of average workers. In 2016, the top 1 percent of workers
captured nearly 13 percent of all earnings in the United States, bringing home
average salaries worth more than $600,000—nearly 20 times what a worker in the
bottom 90 percent earned.
Every year,
America’s rising inequality leaves everyday working families further behind.
But compounding this hardship is the fact that inequality is also hurting the
financial outlook of the key program these families will depend on when they
reach retirement or experience a disability. Here are three main ways that
inequality is damaging Social Security’s finances.
1. Weak wage
growth for everyday workers has dampened payroll tax revenues
Starting in the
early 1970s, workers’ average pay ceased to keep pace with their productivity,
as it had in the previous decades. Instead, workers’ pay grew slowly—if at
all—while the gains from their output were directed toward the pockets of CEOs
and corporate profits.
Slow wage
growth for everyday workers causes revenues flowing into Social Security’s
trust funds from payroll taxes to grow more slowly than if wages had risen
faster. At the same time, it also jeopardizes families’ economic security and
makes it harder for them to save, which makes Social Security’s modest benefits
all the more important when workers reach retirement or experience a
disability.
2. An
increasing share of rich Americans’ earnings escapes taxation
As the pay of
the richest Americans has increasingly pulled away from that of the average
worker, a greater share of total earnings has become concentrated above the
payroll tax cap. Any earnings that exceed this cap—$132,000 in 2019—are
exempted from Social Security taxation. That means Social Security’s revenues
suffer when pay becomes more concentrated in the hands of the rich compared to
revenues if the distribution of pay were more equal. Although the payroll tax
cap tends to rise gradually every year because it is linked to the Social
Security Administration’s national average wage index, earnings for workers at
the top have risen much faster than the index. As a result, only 83.4 percent
of total earnings were subject to Social Security’s payroll taxes in 2017, down
from 90 percent in 1983—the last time Social Security saw a major reform. (see
Figure 1) As a result, in recent years, roughly $1.4 trillion escaped Social
Security taxation.
Due to this
growing gap between the payroll tax cap and earnings at the top, high earners—
including the nearly 150,000 American millionaire and billionaire earners—stop
contributing to Social Security early in the year, while the average American
worker contributes all year long. In 2019, the last millionaire—with earnings
of exactly $1,000,000—will finish contributing on February 18, just 49 days
into the year.
3. The gap
between the bottom and the middle has widened
While economic
insecurity is widespread in today’s economy—with more than 4 in 10 Americans
struggling to afford basics such as housing, food, and health care—rising
inequality has been particularly harmful for the lowest-income workers and
families. This include workers making the federal minimum wage of $7.25, which
Congress has refused to raise for a decade. As a result, since 2009, a
full-time, year-round worker earning $7.25 per hour has effectively lost
$13,330—nearly a full year’s salary—to inflation. From 1979 to 2017, the
lowest-earning 10 percent of workers saw slower wage growth than any other
decile of earners and less than half the growth of the middle decile. Recent
research shows that failure to raise the federal minimum wage has increased
poverty and hardship and exacerbated the retirement crisis facing lower-wage
workers, making Social Security’s benefits all the more critical.
In addition to
jeopardizing workers’ ability to make ends meet, the rise of the low-wage
economy also strains Social Security’s finances, making it costlier for the
program to provide retirement benefits to workers. This is a result of two
things. First, as indicated above, Social Security’s payroll taxes are levied
on the basis of wages, so lower wages and slower wage growth mean less money
flowing into the trust funds than if wages were higher and rising with
productivity growth. Second, because Social Security’s benefits are
progressive—meaning they replace a greater share of lifetime earnings for
lower-wage workers than higher-wage workers when workers reach retirement or
experience a disability—benefits disproportionately rise when wages stagnate
for low-wage workers. In other words, Social Security’s benefit obligations
grow more quickly compared to payroll tax revenue when inequality beneath the
payroll tax cap widens than if the gap between the bottom and the middle were
to remain fixed.
To what extent
has rising inequality already hurt Social Security?
The following
analysis assesses how much larger Social Security’s combined trust funds would
be today if not for the rise in earnings inequality since 1983—the last time
the Social Security program underwent substantial reforms. To do so, we revised
two simulations originally described in a 2015 CAP analysis—updating them to
2017, the most recent year for which complete data are available. The first simulation
estimates how much greater the trust funds’ assets would be if policymakers had
ensured that 90 percent of earnings remained subject to Social Security’s
payroll taxes in every year from 1983 to 2017 rather than shrinking to 83.4
percent. The second simulation estimates how much greater assets would be if
workers’ wages had grown at the same pace as productivity since 1983 instead of
the anemic growth wages actually experienced. These two simulations represent a
conservative assessment of how rising inequality has affected Social Security’s
financial outlook. (see full methodology in CAP’s 2015 analysis)
We estimate
that if Social Security’s taxable wage base had remained at 90 percent of
earnings since 1983, the assets in the combined trust funds would have been
$1.4 trillion greater at the end of 2017. This alone would close nearly 11
percent of Social Security’s anticipated 75-year funding shortfall.
Furthermore, we estimate that if the average worker’s wages had kept pace with
their productivity since 1983, the assets in the combined trust funds would
have been $570 billion greater at the end of 2017.
Conclusion
Policymakers
are finally catching up in growing numbers to Americans’ strong, long-standing,
cross-party support of the Social Security program. In the new Congress,
progressive lawmakers are heeding the people’s call for both expanding the program’s
benefits and curbing the pernicious inequality that has damaged its finances. At
the same time, the policy solutions that would help achieve these goals—such as
raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap—are the same ones that address the
growing public demands for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans so that
they pay their fair share.
As a candidate,
President Trump played on Americans’ overwhelming support for Social Security
when he promised not to cut the program. If Trump were serious about this
promise—as with the many other vows he made to America’s “forgotten men and
women” whose future economic security hinges so heavily on this vital
program—Trump and lawmakers aligned with him would listen to the American
people and join these efforts to strengthen and expand Social Security.
Rachel West is
the director of research for the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center
for American Progress.
THIS VOX
ARTICLE ON THE WEALTH TAX AND OTHER DEMOCRATIC PROPOSALS IS VERY INFORMATIONAL
IN AN AREA WHERE THE AIR NEEDS TO BE CLEARED CONSIDERABLY IN ORDER FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY TO MAKE THE KIND OF PROGRESS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE. RENEWABLE
AND CLEAN ENERGY, GOOD WAGES AND A GOOD JOB, GOOD AND AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE, $15
AN HOUR WAGES, EDUCATION BEYOND HIGH SCHOOL FOR ALL, ARE THINGS WE NEED TO BRING
US FORWARD INTO THE 21ST CENTURY.
ANDREW YANG
PROPOSES A MONTHLY STIPEND OF $1000 MADE TO EVERY ADULT, INSTEAD. HE WOULD
FINANCE THAT BY A SORT OF SALES TAX, A VALUE ADDED TAX, WHICH I CAN SEE FALLING
HEAVILY AGAIN ON THOSE WHOSE DAILY LIFE IS ALREADY TOO EXENSIVE, AND $1000 OR
ANY RELATIVELY SMALL FIXED AMOUNT LIKE THAT WOULD QUICKLY BECOME INSUFFICIENT
TO PAY THE COSTS OF LIFE AGAIN. UNLESS THERE ARE STRICT PRICE CONTROLS ON
EVERYTHING, WHICH AGAIN IS NOT A FREE MARKET IDEA AND WOULD BE RESISTED
STRONGLY, THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY IS LIKE A SNOWSTORM IN THE DESERT. IT WON’T LAST
LONG.
ONLY IF PEOPLE
ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A STIPEND IN ADDITION TO BEING PAID FOR WORK DOES THAT
PLAN MAKE SENSE TO ME, AND THEN THE INDIVIDUAL WILL HAVE SOME CHANCE OF ACTALLY
GETTING AHEAD IN THE GAME. THE FREQUENTLY REPEATED IDEA OF HAVING A PRUDENT RESERVE
OF THREE TO SIX MONTHS OF ACCUMULATED WAGES IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE FOR A GREAT
MANY PEOPLE. BESIDES, BERNIE IS RIGHT IN SAYING THAT HE FEELS PEOPLE WANT THE
SATISFACTION OF EARNING THEIR MONEY, OR A LARGE PART OF IT. I VOTE FOR BOTH A
JOB AND A STIPEND.
Bernie
Sanders’s wealth tax proposal, explained
Sanders’s
proposal is estimated to raise $1.6 trillion more in revenue than Warren’s plan
over 10 years.
By Tara Golshan
Sep 24, 2019, 7:58am EDT
PHOTOGRAPH -- Democratic
presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) addresses an audience on the
campus of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Sara D. Davis/Getty
Images
Sen. Bernie
Sanders has unveiled his plan to directly tax the wealth of millionaires and
billionaires — and it goes substantially further than Sen. Elizabeth
Warren’s plan to do the same.
The proposal
would cut the wealth of billionaires in the United States in half in 15 years and entirely
close the gap in wealth growth between billionaires and the average
American family, according to University of California Berkeley economists
Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, who advised Sanders on his plan. Hitting the
richest 180,000 American households, Saez and Zucman estimate the tax
would raise $4.35 trillion over the next decade, which Sanders says would go
toward paying for his biggest policies, including Medicare-for-all,
affordable housing, and universal childcare.
The wealth tax
has been one of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s signature policy proposals on the
campaign trail, what she sells as a “two-cent tax” on the 75,000 wealthiest
families in the country: She’s proposing a 2 percent tax on household assets
above $50 million and 3 percent for households with assets worth more than $1
billion.
But Sanders’s
campaign has expanded the idea, with more and higher tax brackets that kick
in at a lower wealth threshold.
Here’s how it
would work. Sanders wants to levy a 1 percent tax on wealth above $32
million, for married couples, and then slowly increase the tax for wealthier
households: a 2 percent for wealth between $50 to $250 million; 3 percent for
wealth from $250 to $500 million; 4 percent from $500 million to $1 billion, 5
percent from $1 to $2.5 billion, 6 percent from $2.5 to $5 billion, 7 percent
from $5 to $10 billion, and 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion. Same
thing goes for super-rich single people, except the wealth thresholds are cut
in half. In other words, an unmarried person with $16.5 million in wealth
would pay a $5,000 tax, as would a married couple with $32.5 million in net
worth.
With more
brackets for individuals and families, Sanders’s proposal is estimated to
raise $1.6 trillion more in revenue than Warren’s plan over 10 years. Whereas
Warren’s plan has the same thresholds for individuals and married couples,
which could enable some wealthy couples to evade the tax by getting divorced,
Sanders’s plan closes that loophole.
As Vox’s Matt
Yglesias explained, most middle class Americans already pay a version of a
wealth tax: a property tax to their local government on their homes, the
most common asset among middle-income Americans. But property taxes don’t
get at all the wealth super-rich people keep in stocks or other assets.
Sanders also has a proposal to dramatically expand the estate tax, topping
out at a maximum rate of 77 percent. Currently, the estate tax maxes out
at 40 percent.
Taxing the
ultra-rich has become increasingly popular in progressive circles. This is in
part a reaction to the drastic Trump tax cuts, which have not led to the
kind of middle class income growth that was promised.
This summer,
the United States hit a record for extended economic expansion — the longest
period of economic growth in US history — a metric the Trump administration
is using as a case for his reelection. But income inequality has also been
rising in the United States; rich Americans are holding a greater and greater
share of the wealth.
“Enough is
enough. We are going to take on the billionaire class, substantially reduce
wealth inequality in America and stop our democracy from turning into a
corrupt oligarchy,” Sanders said in a statement.
The wealth tax
debate, explained
Income
inequality in the United States has been well-documented by economists Zucman
and Saez and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics. By analyzing
tax data, the cost of employer-provided health care, pensions, and other
benefits, they found that income growth hasn’t grown substantially for the
middle class and has disproportionately gone to the wealthy. It should be
noted, as Vox’s Dylan Matthews reported, the scale of inequality captured by
Saez and Piketty has recently come under some dispute. But there’s little
question that inequality has increased in the United States since the 1980s.
When Sanders
and Warren rail about the millionaires and billionaires, the wealthy and
well-connected, this is what they’re talking about.
Recently,
increases in income have gone overwhelmingly to the very wealthy, not the
middle class. Piketty/Saez/Zucman 2017
The idea behind
a tax like this is that it would significantly reduce the accumulation
of extreme wealth. For one, the tax itself would incentivize wealthy
people to, well, be less wealthy in the eyes of the government. As Yglesias
explained:
[T]he mere
existence of the wealth tax would, on the margin, encourage wealthy
individuals to dissipate their fortunes on charitable giving and lavish
consumption. If you try to horde wealth the government is going to tax it, so
you might as well spend it.
That is both a
feature and a bug. But as some experts have pointed out, it might also encourage
rich people to hide their wealth. As Saez and Zucman have written in the
past, these kinds of tax proposals are “fragile.”
“They can be
undermined by tax limits, base erosion, and weak enforcement,” the
economists wrote in an early September 2019 paper. That’s why many countries
have abandoned them. As Yglesias pointed out, of the 12 OECD-member nations
that had wealth taxes in 1990, only four — France, Norway, Spain, and
Switzerland — continue to implement them. But Zucman and Saez argue “that tolerating
tax competition and tax evasion is a policy choice.”
Sanders does
address enforcement in his plan.
He is calling
for a “national wealth registry and significant additional third party
reporting requirements,” as well as increasing Internal Revenue Service
funding to enforce the wealth tax. The plan calls for a mandated IRS
audit of 30 percent of wealth tax returns for those in the 1 percent
bracket and a 100 percent audit for all the billionaires. It also
establishes a 40 percent exit tax* on the net value of all assets under $1
billion and 60 percent over $1 billion for anyone that wants to take their
wealth to another country.
Sanders also addresses
a legal criticism Warren’s plan has gotten: That a wealth tax might be
unconstitutional. As with Warren, his campaign is unequivocal in its
pushback, citing two Yale University constitutional experts, Bruce Ackerman
and Anne Alstott, who have written in defense of the wealth tax. Warren,
too, has published letters from more than a dozen legal experts saying the
wealth tax is constitutional.
“The reality is
that we already have a wealth tax in America — the property tax — and it disproportionately
impacts working class families,” the plan reads.
Update: This
article has been updated to include letters from legal experts that Warren’s
Senate office released regarding the constitutionality of the wealth tax.
FOR MANY MORE
INTERESTING SUBJECTS TO EXPLORE, SEE ALSO: Vox’s guide to where 2020 Democrats
stand on policy
Health care16
Criminal
justice14
Taxes and
economics11
EXIT TAX*
EXIT TAX WHEN
RENOUNCING US CITIZENSHIP
If you are a US
citizen and you decide to renounce your US citizenship this can still have
substantial tax implications to you. The US imposes an ‘Exit Tax’ when you
renounce your citizenship if you meet certain criteria.
Generally, if
you have a net worth in excess of $2 million the exit tax will apply to
you. This tax is based on the inherent
gain (in dollar terms) on ALL YOUR ASSETS (including your home). You will also
be taxed on all your deferred compensation—such as pensions at the time of
expatriation.
The exit tax
will also apply to you, even if your net worth is below $2 million, if you have
not complied with your US tax obligations for the last five years. The $2 million
trigger will not apply to certain individuals who are dual citizens at birth.
But the tax will still be imposed if they have not met the five year tax
compliance test.
Green Card
Holders and the Exit Tax:
The exit tax is
also imposed on green card holders who have held a green card for 8 out of the
last 15 years (referred to as ‘long-term residents’). This can mean that green
card holders who have not formerly surrendered the green card are ‘stuck’!!!
They remain subject to US Income Tax but cannot afford to surrender the card
because of the exit tax they will have to pay.
**** ****
**** ****
Comments
Post a Comment