YES WE CAN! Sen. Sanders calls for wealth tax at AFL-CIO convention

[grahamhgreen]

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, called for a progressive estate tax on multi-millionaires and billionaires during a speech on Saturday.

“A nation will not survive morally or economically when so few have so much while so many have so little,” Mr. Sanders said at the Vermont AFL-CIO annual convention.

“We need a tax system which asks the billionaire class to pay its fair share of taxes and which reduces the obscene degree of wealth inequality in America,” said Mr. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

According to Mr. Sanders, taxing the top .25 percent of wealthiest Americans is the fairest way to reduce wealth inequality, lower the $17 trillion national debt and pay for investments in infrastructure, education and other neglected national priorities. Mr. Sanders‘ proposal would not raise taxes for the remaining 99.75 percent of Americans.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/6/sen-sanders-calls-wealth-tax-afl-cio-convention/

They'll never miss it

[madokie]

1. One of the few sane voices in DC

pretty simple where the problem is and what it takes to fix it, If fixing it is making life better for the rest of us that is

[msongs]

2. and a tax on wall street transactions which drive the US into depression to benefit speculators nt

[grahamhgreen]

3. STET tax - he's for it:)

[merrily]

4. The Washrag Times headline is bullshit.

The headline should have been "Sanders recommends ending ONE of the grossly unfair tax benefits the US affords the 1%."

This country had an estate tax for a long time, and usually with sizeable exemptions for spouses. And it should.

You tax for social reasons. The idea behind the tax code is that, every time you receive money from anywhere, a tax is due. Wages, rent, capital gains, gifts, whatever. And the tax money is used for the benefit of your country and state, including you.

Yes, there are deductions and loopholes, but that is the basic principal of taxation. Yes, tax money is not always spent wisely or fairly, but that is a separate issue

Why should the wages of someone earning money by providing some kind of benefit be taxed, while someone who did nothing to benefit society to get the money be exempt from taxation? Living longer than your benefactors is not of any particular benefit to society. Maybe giving that money to a charity, which the tax code encourages, would have benefited society more.

The idea that society does not benefit when money goes tax free from one generation to another is not new. It is something we took from English law, which voided a will entirely, if the will provided provided for tying up money in a trust (usually for the benefit of family members) for too long.

A progressive tax is the only fair kind. You didn't build your fortune in a wilderness. You used the country's infrastructure, its labor pool, its military and law enforcement protection and a host of other things. And, at a minimum, you probably polluted its air, while you were at it.

BTW, good for Bernie!

[Scuba]

5. Tax them and tax them and tax them until they're only fabulously wealthy.

[imthevicar]

6. Well as much as I see this being necessary,

It should fly over Wall Street Like a Lead Balloon!

[grahamhgreen]

8. ...and land on their heads;)

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. To be clear, this is about estate taxes (ie once, on death), not a wealth tax (ie every year)

Under his proposal, 99.75 percent of Americans would not pay a penny more in estate taxes. For those who would pay more, the tax rate on estates valued from $3.5 million to $10 million would be 40 percent. There would be a 50 percent tax on estates worth $10 million to $50 million and a 55 percent levy on estates worth more than $50 million. A 10 percent surtax would be applied on estates worth more than $1 billion, a category that today includes fewer than 500 American families. The bill also would close estate tax loopholes that have allowed the wealthy to avoid an estimated $100 billion since 2000. On all estates, the first $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples would be exempt from federal taxes.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/At-AFL-CIO-Convention-San-by-Bernie-Sanders-Sanders-Bernard_Wealth_Wealth-Redistribution-Of-140906-950.html

Normally, 'wealth tax' is used to mean a tax levied every year (at a far lower rate, since it's every year) on wealth of living people, above a certain amount - eg in France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_tax_on_wealth
or proposed by the Green Party in the UK this week:

Ms Bennett also outlined plans to ask those with more than £3m in assets to pay an annual levy of between 1% and 2%, saying they should put back more into the economy.

"This means £30,000 to £60,000 (a year). To most of us, that sounds like a lot of money. To the wealthy, it is not very much money.

"We do not regard it as stinging. People have made their wealth from the whole of society and if they pay back some of that wealth they get a better society instead of the dreadful austerity cuts we have seen to public services which have done such terrible damage."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29066870

[ladjf]

9. I agree with the learned and wise Senator. I will vote for him if

he is on the ballot. And, if he isn't, I'll reluctantly vote for Clinton who I believe to be a regular, average hack politician.

[grahamhgreen]

10. I think he will sweep:)

[ladjf]

11. You are the first person I've heard with that much enthusiasm for his chances.

I do feel that he has the knowledge, wisdom and energy to do a great job for America. He would need a good energetic VP to help with a lot of the day to day requirements of the Presidency.

Yet, I'm skeptical that of his chances at the ballot box. Young Americans don't seem to have much faith in older people.