Bernie Sanders: Let's Return to Tax Policy of "Radical $ociali$t Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Tom Joad]

I can't link to the article directly because the web address contains the "S" word.

But it's on Alternet.

This is exactly the tax policy that I am in favor of. A 90% top marginal rate on those with multi-million dollar annual incomes. This was the rate in effect for almost two decades under FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower and it did not destroy America, in fact, quite the opposite, the economy thrived.

This week, Vermont Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders sat down with CNBC's John Harwood to discuss his plan for the United States.

In the interview, Sanders also indicates that he'd like to see a 90 percent tax rate in the country. After he sarcastically referred to that rate existing under "radical so************************t Dwight D. Eisenhower," Harwood asked him if he thought it was too high. "No. That's not 90 percent of your income, you know?" explained Sanders, "That's the marginal. I'm sure you have some really right-wing nut types, but I'm not sure that every very wealthy person feels that it's the worst thing in the world for them to pay more in taxes, to be honest with you. I think you've got a lot of millionaires saying, "You know what? I've made a whole lot of money. I don't want to see kids go hungry in America. Yeah, I'll pay my fair share."

From the end of the Second World War to 1981, Americans had a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent and above. The tax rate under Eisenhower was actually 91% and the economy grew faster than it ever has since

.

http://www.alternet.org/

[Tom Joad]

Predictably, Fox News is apoplectic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB1Rfxyf5Zo

[bobabode]

Is Bernie the new Gene McCarthy or Ralph Nader?
Don't get me wrong, I love the old duffer but do we really need a insurgency from the left?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Is Bernie the new Gene McCarthy or Ralph Nader?
Don't get me wrong, I love the old duffer but do we really need a insurgency from the left?

I'd say he's more like Eugene Debs.

I think we do need someone to give a voice to the left.

Today's Democrats are centrists, and the Republicans are far right.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Predictably, Fox News is apoplectic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB1Rfxyf5Zo

I find Cavuto here, fairly calm and reasonably analytical.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

I find Cavuto here, fairly calm and reasonably analytical.

Ha! Cavuto departs from the truth rapidly. Right about at the 1-minute point, for example, one gets this phrase:

"But nine out of ten dollars you earn for Washington's taking?"

While tax dollars may be 'taken' by Washington, they don't 'stay' in Washington, so that's not a good representation of the result of taxation. But that's the least of it.

It's the nine-out-of-ten part that is complete scare tactics BS! 90% is the marginal high rate. Most taxpayers would never reach it, and of those that do, in most cases only a small fraction of their income would be taxed at that rate.

And that word "you" is the biggest part of the BS. It seeks to mobilize the Fox masses against the idea, by claiming the scary (but inaccurate) nine-out-of-ten would affect them personally. But only a tiny fraction of viewers would ever reach that marginal rate.

Cavuto's "analysis" turns out to be typical dishonest manipulation from Fox.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Ha! Cavuto departs from the truth rapidly. Right about at the 1-minute point, for example, one gets this phrase:

While tax dollars may be 'taken' by Washington, they don't 'stay' in Washington, so that's not a good representation of the result of taxation. But that's the least of it.

It's the nine-out-of-ten part that is complete scare tactics BS! 90% is the marginal high rate. Most taxpayers would never reach it, and of those that do, in most cases only a small fraction of their income would be taxed at that rate.

And that word "you" is the biggest part of the BS. It seeks to mobilize the Fox masses against the idea, by claiming the scary (but inaccurate) nine-out-of-ten would affect them personally. But only a tiny fraction of viewers would ever reach that marginal rate.

Cavuto's "analysis" turns out to be typical dishonest manipulation from Fox.

Exactly. He is trying to make Joe Sixpack think his taxes are going to be 90%,

I can't find the source now, but I am pretty sure I read somewhere that Sanders had suggested an annual income threshold of TEN MILLION DOLLARS before that 90% rate would begin.

Back in the 1950's under Eisenhower that threshold was $400,000. Adjusting for inflation that would be about $3.5 million today.

So what Sanders is suggesting is even more conservative that what we had in the 1950's.

[Pio1980]

What these butthole propagandist commentators convey re taxation is that in the event you become a billionaire, it will be your hard earned money that's subsidizing the layabouts. So stop it before that happens to you after you hit the big time money.
Sponsored by your friendly Wall St. Billionaires.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

What these butthole propagandist commentators convey re taxation is that in the event you become a billionaire, it will be your hard earned money that's subsidizing the layabouts. So stop it before that happens.
Sponsored by your friendly Wall St. Billionaires.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

You don't get to be a billionaire by earning it.

You make it on the backs of others.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

You don't get to be a billionaire by earning it.

You make it on the backs of others.

I suppose when your money goes to the Caymans and Switzerland, you could care less what happens to this country later as long as you don't have to pay for making it livable for others.
Short form, "I've got mine, fuck you".

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk