Sanders questions the necessity of Wall St

Killing Wall St. is a worthy goal. Its an extractive casino Ponzi scheme piece of S that deserves to die. Its meager or slight influence on innovation does not justify its constant society killing level of unadultered fraud. There should be zero tollerance for fraud, and especially if it has a business chilling effect- so what?! There are better ways to fund and innovate than inflating mindless speculation and paying the wrong people.

1 Like

Bernie Sanders released his 2014 tax return this weekend, revealing that he and his wife took $60,208 in deductions from their taxable income. These deductions are all perfectly legal and permitted under the U.S. tax code, but they present a morally inconvenient, if delicious, irony: The Democratic socialist from Vermont, a man who rages against high earners paying a lower effective tax rate than blue-collar workers, saved himself thousands using many of the tricks that would be banned under his own tax plan.

His web site declares, “We need a progressive tax system in this country which is based on ability to pay. It is not acceptable that corporate CEOs in this country often enjoy an effective tax rate which is lower than their secretaries.”

Read more at:

Both Bernie and the Crony Capitalist Buffet call on to others to pay more tax, but they both deduct the crap out of their own income.

Starting with all those BILLIONS Bernie bothered not to waste time making or glombing onto.

The amount is important, but so is the principle.
Is $60K in deductions “reasonable”?

Yes, deductions are not credits. What difference will those deductions actually make bracket wise?

TFA says his presidential tax plan would leave his family just outside the high tax bracket.

I think the article has a point. He argues people should pay as much as they can, but he pays as little as he can (i.e. he claimed all dedications possible).
That’s exactly how Buffet has it too (he once said he shouldn’t be paying less tax %-wise than his secretary; the truth is he doesn’t have to - he would pay more if he didn’t “optimize”, which is what the Sanders do as well).

There is a point there, but the man has clearly worked for what he has and you’d have to turn to someone like Musk to get an equivalent return for society.

Fortunately not every policy is questioned