Bernie accused of being in the 1%

[Bubzer]

To really be able to understand this argument, we first have to know what a one percenter looks like:

Acording to what I've read at usfunds.com, you need to be making a little over $521k/year to be in the top 1%
http://www.usfunds.com/investor-library/frank-talk/what-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-percent-not-as-much-as-you-think/#.VnGUtKrUhIB

Over at CNN, they say you just need to make a paltry $400k/ year.
http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/

If you look at Investopedia, you’d have to make $434,682 (AG) to make their 1% list
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp

So, clearly, this isn't a cut and dry issue. However, we can pick one of these numbers and call it our baseline for comparison. To give the hillary crowd the benefit of the doubt, we'll go with the lowest break point presented here: $400k/year.

The Sanders household took in more than $205,000 in 2014, and paid the feds nearly $28,000 in taxes — an effective rate of about 20 percent based on Sanders' taxable income of $141,000. That means they likely earned more than 95 percent of Americans, according to the most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau.

It's worth noting that this is a joint filing, rather than Bernie Sanders alone, being compared to individual Americans instead of other joint filings.

Sanders had an estimated net worth of $330,000 in 2013, according to financial disclosures filed with the U.S. Senate and analyzed by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group that tracks money in politics. But that's a relative pittance on Capitol Hill, where the median net worth for a member of Congress topped $1 million in 2013, according to the Center's analysis. In the Senate, Sanders is downright poor: the median there was about $2.8 million.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/08/421151627/sanders-among-the-least-wealthy-presidential-candidates

With this information, we can pretty clearly see that Bernie isn't even close to being in the ranks of the 1%...even including his wife's income. Though, strangely enough, some hillary supporters insist he's "on the cusp" of being a 1% elitist.

Though, if you take a glance at hillary's income, an entirely different picture comes into view.

For example; hillary made $25 million in speeches since 2014. Most of that from banks, and the rest from other big corporations... so well over 5 times the threshold to be a one percenter. Its worth mentioning, that doesn't include her retirement income from being in the senate or secretary of state (which is about 14% of what she earned in each role), or the absurd amounts of tax-free money funneled through and into her foundation. It also doesn't include Bill's income.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-earn-more-than-25-million-in-speaking-fees-since-january-2014/2015/05/15/52605fbe-fb4d-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

Now, I've heard some claim that all the money from those speeches was donated to charity, but this is patently false. the money was donated to the Clinton foundation, so it's not a charitable contribution, but a transfer of money from one Clinton owned account to another... that just happens to have all kinds of tax exemptions.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/16/occupy-democrats/liberal-group-claims-all-hillary-clintons-speaking/

Long story short; Hillary is unquestionably in the 1%. Possibly even the top margin of that 1%. Bernie, however, most certainly is not. He's not even close to that lofty margin.

[99th_Monkey]

1. HUGE K&R - Thank you Bubzer for this excellent analysis & research.

I've been pointing out for months on DU how Hillary & Bill ARE well-up into the 1%,
-- a fact that apparently annoys the hell out of Clintonistas -- so they've been trying
to turn that around and say the same about Bernie; which is total bullshit.

Thanks for clearing the air on this one.

[Bubzer]

3. Glad to be of service! Any day I can clear away some intelectual dishonesty, is a good one.

[MisterP]

7. next they'll be saying Sanders voted for IWR, meddled to keep democracy out of Honduras,

hired AQ and proto-IS in Libya and Syria, and is married to Bill Clinton

[yeoman6987]

28. Yeah saying sanders is poor is wrong on so many levels.

He has had a huge salary for over twenty years. No tears for him on this subject.

[99th_Monkey]

40. Who in the hell said "Sanders is poor"?

He's only "poor" in relation to those in the upper 1%, but certainly not "poor"
in any technical way.

Seems I recall Clintons saying they were "dead broke" when they left the WH.

But no sane person would suggest they were anywhere near the official "poverty line"
i.e. they wouldn't qualify for food stamps.

[beam me up scottie]

47. What is it with you and strawman arguments?

Do you have a link to the post(s) where someone called him "poor"?

[yeoman6987]

51. Read the bottom of the OP

That's where I got it.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Point out where the op called him "poor":

Long story short; Hillary is unquestionably in the 1%. Possibly even the top margin of that 1%. Bernie, however, most certainly is not. He's not even close to that lofty margin.

[yeoman6987]

53. I was going to use the same paragraph you provided.

We are on the same page now.

[beam me up scottie]

54. No, I provided the text for you to point out the exact words.

Where is the part where he was called poor?

[yeoman6987]

55. Bernie is certainly not.

He is basically saying he is poor in that sentence.

[beam me up scottie]

56. How does saying Bernie isn't in the 1% = Bernie is poor?

Are you reading the same thing I am?

[yeoman6987]

57. I'm trying to

I guess I read it incorrectly. I'll do better in other OPs. I really guess I need to read more carefully.

[UglyGreed]

2. According to Roll Call's Wealth of Congress Index

Bernie ranks 340th

http://media.cq.com/50Richest/


340.Sen. Bernard Sanders I-Vt.

Twitter
Facebook
Google+
Email
RANK NET WORTH MINIMUM ASSETS MINIMUM LIABILITIES
This year #340 $0.16M $0.19M $0.03M
Previous year #338 $0.15M $0.18M $0.03M
Change -2 8.67% 7.44% 0.00%
Roll Call Member profile »

[Kentonio]

4. Whoah!

"Its worth mentioning, that doesn't include her retirement income from being secretary of state (which is the same as what she earned in the role)"

What the hell is retirement income? She continues to get the same salary?!

[Bubzer]

5. Updated OP. She actually makes 14% of her sallary from being in the senate and another 14% for SOS.

http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2013-09-08/story/fact-check-does-hillary-clinton-get-paid-her-full-salary-pension

[Doctor_J]

6. One of the early postulates from Camp Weather Vane was that Bernie's not rich

because he mismanages his money. Looks like they've got us surrounded again.

[Bubzer]

8. It's like the GOP versus Obama...

Gas prices are going down
GOP: Oil jobs are disappearing!!!!11!1!111
Healthcare coverage is higher than it's ever been.
GOP: healthcare costs are skyrocketing!!!!11!1!111

Camp Weather Vane: Bernie is a one percenter!!!!11!1!111
Bernie isn't even close to being in the 1%
Camp Weather Vane: Bernie mismanages his money!!!!11!1!111
...

What's that meme going around?

Not good enough Bernie.

[arcane1]

11. Beat me to it. I can't keep up!

"His net worth is too low!"

"He'll get a nice retirement fund from Israel!"

"He's a 1%-er!"



I repeat the unofficial motto of the Clinton campaign: Whatever It Takes.

[JaneyVee]

9. So they're in the top 3% and now you feel better.

Is he in the top 1% of Vermont income?

[bvf]

14. What next? Will you be wanting

a break-down by ZIP code?

GMAFB.

[Gore1FL]

19. I am sure there are legitimiate reasons to dislike Sanders

Maybe you should find one of those to complain about.

[JaneyVee]

24. I'm not complaining. Neither is anyone else.

This isn't really an issue.

[Bubzer]

25. I agree...except, some of your compatriots made it an issue.

[Gore1FL]

61. I assumed becasue of your replies you considered it worth your time.

My bad.

[Bubzer]

32. THEY? No. HE is not. HE isn't even in the top 10%. And yes, I do feel better.

[JaneyVee]

37. Your own excerpt says they earned more than 95% of Americans.

[Bubzer]

38. Yes... "THEY"...and as I stated in the article, the comparison is Bernie and his wife vs individuals

[cali]

33. Maybe, but Hillary's biggest Vermont supporters are by far and away the wealthiest people in vermont

Like Jane Stetson. Actually, that's Jane Watson Stetson. Watson as in IBM. And Governor Shumlin.


Jane Stetson is the granddaughter of Thomas J. Watson, the founder of IBM, and the daughter of Arthur K. Watson (chairman and President of IBM World Trade Corporation and former United States Ambassador to France).[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Watson_Stetson

[aidbo]

10. Silly accusation. Even if he was in the top 1% of earners or top 1% of wealth..

..it wouldn't change the truth of his message. Just deflection.

[Phil1934]

12. I heard on SNL

he only had one pair of underwear

[Skwmom]

13. All of the money was NOT donated to the Clinton Foundation. n/t

[bvf]

15. K&R for excellence in posting, Bubzer! n/t

[pnwmom]

16. They own real estate both in Vermont and Capitol hill.

So it's hard to imagine the total value of their assets is really about $300K. A condo alone in Capitol Hill would be worth more than that.

[Omaha Steve]

21. Have you seen it?

[Bubzer]

34. Speaking of the hard to imagine....

Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.

From 2001 to 2014 the power couple spent $95 million on taxes. Hillary’s 2008 presidential run cost her $13 million. Their two homes cost a combined $5 million, and the Clintons have given away $22 million to charity. All of this is according to FEC filings, property records and years of tax returns. Add it up and you get $135 million. If the Clintons made $230 million, spent $135 million and have just $45 million left over, what happened to the other $50 million?

“That’s kind of strange,” says Joe Biden’s accountant, Walter Deyhle. “You have to report all of your assets. You have to report assets that are owned by your spouse.”

It seems unlikely that the Clintons could have spent all of it. Over 14 years $50 million averages out to $3.6 million in extra expenses per year, or $9,800 per day.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/09/29/the-mystery-of-hillarys-missing-millions/

Where do you suppose all that money went? I know Chelsea's husband, Marc Mezvinsky, is a hedge fund manager... could it have gone to him perhaps? Or perhaps overseas? As the article says;

"Billionaires like Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, Lakshmi Mittal of India and Joseph Safra of Brazil have donated to their foundation. Maybe the Clintons are returning the favor?"

Whatever the case, what we do know is it's yet another secret she wont open up about, unless forced to... just like the e-mail scandal.

[pnwmom]

41. What do they mean, "extra expenses"? I don't see anything in there for living expenses,

other than owning the houses.

And if they gave a trust to their daughter and grandchildren, so what? No one's claiming they're not part of the 1%.

[Bubzer]

46. Trusts must be declared, and taxes paid. This is a question of a missing 50 million.

Another way to think about it is this; it's 50 million that has not been accounted for at tax time... so the questions are: why? Where is it? What could be gained by hiding that 50 million from the IRS?

As the article says:

"It seems unlikely that the Clintons could have spent all of it. Over 14 years $50 million averages out to $3.6 million in extra expenses per year, or $9,800 per day."

Especially given all the expenses covered for the Clinton family, courtesy of the US taxpayer.

[pnwmom]

48. No, it doesn't say there was $50 million not accounted at tax time.

Tax forms don't report assets; they report income.

[Bubzer]

49. Wrong. Taxes includes outstanding balances owed on realestate, and investments (assests).

I think you need take a closer look at this excerpt:

$95 million on taxes. Hillary’s 2008 presidential run cost her $13 million. Their two homes cost a combined $5 million, and the Clintons have given away $22 million to charity. All of this is according to FEC filings, property records and years of tax returns. Add it up and you get $135 million. If the Clintons made $230 million, spent $135 million and have just $45 million left over, what happened to the other $50 million?

[SoapBox]

17. More lie flinging, to see if something sticks.

When they can't defend their own candidate on issues or facts, they just try to win by sliming the other candidates.

Typical low-ball tactics.

[sarge43]

18. Swung and missed yet another dirt ball.

Easy out.

[Scootaloo]

20. There's also the problem that the entire "attack" is 100% reliant on right-wing theology

Namely the dogma that "The left hates rich people!"

"Gosh oh golly, if we can just prove that Bernie is rich enough, the left will either HAVE to hate him, because he's rich, or will admit to being hypocrites!"

[nc4bo]

22. Gee, the results of the poo flinging are on the flingers' fingers.

Telfon Bernie, still clean and fresh.

[840high]

27. My man Bernie.

[Ed Suspicious]

23. He's got a good job with a great benefits package.

I think he wants that for all of us.

[Bubzer]

26. +1

[peacebird]

29. What a hoot! He's one of the few pols on the hill who didn't become a millionaire in office

The Clintons certainly lined their pockets in the years since leaving the White House " dead broke"

[beam me up scottie]

30. Don't tell me someone is questioning his finances again.

Is it the Israel rumour or something new?

All of these posts accusing him of only caring about money make you go hmmmm.

[whatthehey]

31. He's certainly not, but he's not at a normal income level either

Just look at any DU thread on personal finances and see whether the general consensus is about whether 200k+ is normal or elite/rich/out of touch. As long as you don't tie the number to Sanders, you'll get the latter answer.

I don't begrudge him a penny. He has a job that carries significant challenges, responsibilities and pressure. But I don't begrudge say, a Director of Engineering at GE the similar income they make for the same reason.

Dems need to stop this selective but generalized antagonism towards those with reasonable levels of financial success. There is no moral difference between the income Bernie makes and the income our GE engineer makes, only in the actions of the people themselves.

[Bubzer]

36. That's the wrong discussion. The right one is Bernie's income vs hillary's income.

The reason why it's Bernie's income vs hillary's income is because hillary supporters are throwing stones... saying that he's a one percenter.

Making $25 million is gonna net that category of elite/rich/out of touch long before a household income of $205 thousand.

[whatthehey]

42. Oh he's surely no Clinton in the $$ world, but I like consistency

If guy A making $200k+ isn't automatically out of touch with and antagonistic towards low income workers, an accusation that nobody is likely to level at Sanders, then neither is random guy B who makes the same amount. People making less than 200k are routinely assumed to be so here.

We can quibble about how likely disconnects are at a given income level, but what I stress is that it's the person not the paycheck that makes that disconnect. Even at income levels far beyond Sanders' or even Clinton's.

[Bubzer]

43. I like consistency too... but this is an issue of context.

A hillary supporter attacked Bernie on grounds of income... I'm just pointing out that a hillary supporter has no business throwing stones while living in a glass house.

That aside, I agree with you on being consistent.

[upaloopa]

35. Your wealth is not a sign of your politics all

the time.

I work in Santa Barbara. There are many 1% folks here. The city tends to vote for Dems. Our Rep Louis Capps is not going to run for re-election. Running on the Dem side is a former mayor and a sitting County Supervisor.

[Bubzer]

39. No, not all the time. But it's a fairly reliable indicator. Anecdotes... not so much.

http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/richer-people-continue-to-vote-republican/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/government-wealthy-study_n_5154879.html
https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-republicans/

Have a good one!

[whatthehey]

44. Data. Good idea

50-75k higher Rep vote than 100k+

[Bubzer]

45. +1

Nicely illustrates the point.
Small request...could you either post or message me the link?

[nc4bo]

50. Is this it? OP can verify if correct.

The 2008 elections - Daily Kos

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1154819/full_content

[Bubzer]

60. It's close. Thanks!

[cantbeserious]

58. Thank You For Sharing These Truths

eom

[Kalidurga]

59. I used to assume just Republicans are lying no matter what they type

I have had to put a lot of other people in that group that I assume is lying. It's a very sad thing to do. No one should lie to prop up a bad candidate.