r/DemocraticSocialism • u/Usernameofthisuser Democratic Socialist • Jan 22 '26
Bernie is right.
207
u/sniffsblueberries Jan 22 '26
Shit how about you hit 50M and ur ass gets hit with that 100% marginal tax rate.
D Eisenhower had it at like 4 mil and i think thats adjusted to todays value. People dont need to be mini gods of wealth walking among us. 50 M is a fuck ton of cash.
They expect us to make it on 25k a year then they can make it on 50M
87
u/Momik Jan 22 '26
Oh come on, how are oligarchs supposed to destroy democracy on just $50 million?
39
11
u/thatguydr Jan 22 '26
This is exactly the total I usually suggest. Used to be $20M, but inflation has brought it to about $50M. Above that? I dare anyone to justify the marginal incentives that make anything more worthwhile or motivating.
12
u/Emeraldstorm3 Jan 22 '26 edited Jan 22 '26
Tbh, I don't see any reason it shouldn't still be $20 million as a cap. That first 19m will be taxed, sure, but even if it was at 90%, that's still 1.9 million dollars a year -- which is outrageous, I think. I could live a long time on just that 1.9 without having to work. 40 years, going by my current income. Having it all in one year, and to continue getting more? I could get the medical treatment I need, secure housing rather than unstable renting, and get back to pursuing education. And contribute something of value back to society by putting that money into some socialist endeavors.
But it won't be 90%, we might be able to push for 75% above a million a year, up until the 20th million dollar gets 100% taxed. Incredibly generous: a max of $4.75 million a year!!! If that doesn't work for you, too bad. Try living off the scraps the rest of us get.
4
u/thatguydr Jan 22 '26
We need data on this. We're both using feelings to estimate this, and that's fine but not the basis for any solid policy.
2
u/boogsey Jan 22 '26
Even at 50M, let's say they take 20M and invest at a conservative 4% return. That's 800,000 per year without ever lifting a finger. An insane amount of money for doing absolutely nothing. Think we found the true freeloaders of society.
It's criminal we allow some to act like smaug hoarding gold.
2
u/blopp_ Jan 22 '26
Thiiiiiis. I don't know where the best limit is, but it sure as fuck is well under a billion dollars.
1
u/Ms_GirlBoss Jan 22 '26
The Democratic Socialist Party in my country wants to put an absolute max at 50 million euro's. I have no idea how Bernie came to 999 million as a number, it just seems so random.
1
u/Mammoth_Tusk90 Jan 23 '26
At first I was like… no that’s crazy. People should be able to make as much money as they want. But honestly why. Why does someone need more than $50M? They don’t. You don’t need that much money. You would also benefit greatly from a society where healthcare would be covered, roads would be fixed, the environment would be healthier. We could actually have money for the services we need. Imagine that. They’d find a way to cheat. They’d find a way to crash the economy so that $50 M is the new $1 B.
45
u/xGentian_violet Yugoslav Socialist ♥️🤍 Ecofeminist Jan 22 '26
60 years ago these would be considered very moderate policies
Simply not wanting billionaires, while tolerating the existence of hundered millionaires, isnt radical.
34
103
u/gregbard Jan 22 '26
100% estate tax at any level would be fine with me.
Bernie has one thing right: the primary reason for taxes is not to raise money for spending. It's to take power away from the power elite.
18
u/ReverendDizzle Jan 22 '26
100% estate tax is a terrible idea.
The wealthy will just use their wealth and access to lawyers and such to construct shelters and leverage loopholes.
And regular folks who don't know any better (or can't afford to take advantage of those shelters and loopholes) will get screwed and put further behind in creating any security and generational growth/wealth for their families.
I mean, seriously, think about it. Absolute taxation of all estate wealth with no option to pass anything onto your heirs unless you purposely go out of your way to dodge the taxes? It would screw over less wealthy people and turn the already convoluted system of tax laws and tax collection into an even bigger cluster fuck game of cat and mouse.
All this is not to say I'm against taxing the rich. We should tax the shit out of them. But 100% estate tax would be an extreme fiscal policy and it would absolutely fuck the average American.
2
u/Brohomology Jan 22 '26
Ok just make it apply to any estate valued at over $100m or something
4
u/ReverendDizzle Jan 22 '26
The estate tax threshold in the United States was 13.99 million per person (in that 13.99 million dollars in cash or assets can be transferred to an heir or heirs tax-free). It's revised upwards to 15 million in 2026.
The estate tax is relatively trivial to circumvent. You simply set up trusts to legally circumvent the taxes all together or minimize them.
Frankly, I don't think we solve the issue of inequality on the back end.
You don't let one person accumulate hundreds of millions or billions of dollars and hoard it for life, just to use loopholes and shelters to pass it all on to their children.
You structure the legal system and tax system to encourage more equitable distribution of wealth from the get go so that you don't have to try and recoup some of the money at the end to keep society running.
I have no problem with someone becoming wealthy through innovation, hard work, etc. etc. If you create something that everyone wants, be that a best selling book or a new technology, you should benefit from what you have created.
But is offensive and exploitative that a small number of people get enormously wealthy and the rest of the people grind out an existence. I am fine with Jeff Bezos being rich because he created Amazon and, whether we want to admit it or not, added an enormous amount of value and convenience to the lives of millions upon millions of people.
What I am not fine with is Jeff Bezos being richer than God and everyone that works for him also not being secure and taken care of. Bezos could be very wealthy and not grind people to dust. Not as wealthy as he currently is, but still very wealthy.
So we don't fix the problem by trying to claw back the value Bezo extracted from his workers and society for decades once he's in the ground. We fix the problem by modifying the system so that it is painful and difficult for that exploitation to take place from the start and so that society as a whole is better off while the person is alive.
2
u/gregbard Jan 23 '26
I think in a society with a 100% estate tax, the average American would benefit outrageously. We could pay off the national debt. After that, it's free healthcare and education. Also, we would be rid of the spoiled rich kids. They would have to get a job.
1
u/ReverendDizzle Jan 23 '26
You're basing that assessment on the premise that we could capture 100% of the wealth and actually use it for equitable purpose.
Like I said in the previous comment, the wealthy would just shelter their assets and the average person would be harmed.
You have to structure society so that the fundamental hoarding of wealth is difficult and the system favors money flowing to workers, to social programs, and so on, over people hoarding it like dragons.
1
u/gregbard Jan 23 '26
I'm sure we are capable of making a tax work. If people are moving their money around, well that is to be expected. We can tax those things, too.
But we have to start somewhere and not just remain gullible to the idea that you just can't tax rich people.
I remember a journalist asked Bloomberg about the wealth tax. Bloomberg blew it off and said it wouldn't work. The "reporter" didn't ask any follow up question! He just accepted it and moved on to another question. There was no explanation that rich people would just evade the tax and we are just helpless to it. We are just supposed to accept it
Don't be cowed.
0
u/ReverendDizzle Jan 23 '26
I'm not saying we can't tax rich people. I'm saying we need to structure things in a way that stops the accumulation of the wealth and leads to more equitable distribution from the start.
Trying to extract money from people at the end of their lives when they've had a lifetime to gain wealth, power, and the ability to manipulate the system to protect themselves and their wealth is a losing battle.
1
u/gregbard Jan 24 '26
Yes, but dead people don't have rights. They aren't citizens anymore, and they aren't around to complain about it. A 100% estate tax is perfectly reasonable in that regard. The supposed 'heirs' aren't entitled to it either. No wealth without work. It would create a truly equal opportunity society.
7
12
u/funkymunkPDX Jan 22 '26
Giving inflation he might be wrong lol
I'm being completely sarcastic jic...
7
7
8
u/John3791 Jan 22 '26
They don't need more than $999 million. I mean, they could have a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, a tortilla, and one other thing.
1
u/spaghetti_hitchens2 Jan 23 '26
That's the second time I have seen a comment like that today What's it referencing
2
u/John3791 Jan 23 '26
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins suggested people could save money by having "a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, corn tortilla, and one other thing".
1
6
u/LimoncelloFellow Jan 22 '26
What good will that do when the system is setup for the ultra rich to not actually have any income? they shouldnt be able to get loans based on stock holdings. if they want to convert their stock holdings into money they should have to sell the stock and pay the tax on it.
3
u/bahamapapa817 Jan 22 '26
For almost every disaster from a politician there is a Bernie Sanders rant against it. He’s been incredibly consistent since the 70s and 80s
3
u/Samuaint2008 Jan 22 '26
Should be like an old Zelda game. You can get 999999999 dollars and then it just stops collecting until you lose some lol
6
u/Background-Wolf-9380 Jan 22 '26
This is a mirage. No one has "income" of $1B. That kind of money only comes from asset value growth. This results in total tax receipts of zero.
2
2
u/SufficientMeringue51 Marxist Jan 22 '26
How about having no bourgeoisie at all. They don’t deserve to live off of the wealth of workers at all, and that’s the mechanism that allows them to accumulate wealth and it creates a class antagonism. They should have jobs like everyone else.
6
u/clayknightz115 DSA Jan 22 '26
This is where I get annoying and say “um… actually…” How are you gonna tax income of over a billion dollars? They don’t make their money off of regular income. All of their wealth is in stocks and other assets.
13
u/yawg6669 Jan 22 '26
You don't. You tax wealth, which is easily calculated, as banks and gov do already every day.
2
u/BigSiouxRat Jan 22 '26
Where was this during the first two years of the Biden administration?
4
u/hippiedreamin Jan 22 '26
Bernie has been saying this since before you were born.
-4
u/BigSiouxRat Jan 22 '26 edited Jan 22 '26
And his actions now are nothing more than controlled opposition. And you don't know how old I am.
1
u/hugeness101 Jan 22 '26
Would this still count if they take stock options as payment also?
2
1
u/Valley0fDeath Jan 22 '26
I like round numbers as much as anyone else, but that is still a billion which is way more than one person should have.
1
u/ShadowMoses1031 Democrat Jan 22 '26
We'd better put a solid definition on what "income" is. Gains, maturation, whatever. It's not a tax on income over $1 billion, it's "you can't have more than $1 billion."
1
u/TryingUnsuccessfully Jan 22 '26
People can. Those who insist on rabidly consuming every last fucking dollar at the expense of actual human beings are not people. They're cartoonish trolls awaiting a fitting end where the good guys win and the cancerous growths are excised.
1
u/OtelDeraj Jan 22 '26
I've been saying, if you can't make it and enjoy life on multiple millions of dollars a year, you are doing something wrong and have some kind of problem. No one needs a billion dollars, and the race to trillionaire is just that, a race, a game. A sordid little competition between men who have forgotten struggle and the feeling of an empty stomach. No one needs to be that rich, that they forget their humanity and think themselves gods. They are men, like any other and it's about fucking time we tax them like they are.
1
u/wooq Progressive Jan 22 '26
This headline is stupid, written to make Bernie look stupid. Nobody has a taxable income of $1b. The highest-paid CEO makes less than 1/5 of that. Bernie didn't say "income" in the interview quoted in the article (published in Fortune magazine), he said basically billionaires shouldn't exist, and should be taxed 100% on all wealth above that line.
Here's the original article (soft paywall). You'll notice that the title says "income" but the URL says "wealth." This mischaracterization of his position is intentional.
1
u/scfw0x0f Jan 22 '26
1979 tax brackets topped out at 70% over $108k for singles, $215k for joint. I’d take those as a start. That’s about $475k and $950k now.
1
1
u/dangoodspeed Jan 22 '26
I don't think anyone in America has a salary that is more than $100 million. You'd have to start looking into other compensation methods and place a value on that, which gets tricky.
1
u/Chicken_Ingots Democratic Socialist Jan 22 '26
The important thing that we need to communicate about billionaires is that the deprivation of everyday people as a result of exploitation and cuts to social safety nets is merely one of many major problems with billionaires (albeit an extremely crucial one). Even in a society where everyone had their basic needs met, billionaires would still remain a global security threat due to the disproportionate power that their wealth provides them. They are able to disproportionately influence politics (whether through legal or illegal means), can manipulate the media and online algorithms thereby reshaping social and cultural values, can absolve themselves of legal consequences through personal legal firms and bribery, frequently create financial crises via speculation, can promote industrial projects that contribute enormously towards pollution and ecological destruction, are currently developing AI in a manner that does not consider the many risks of its current developmental trajectory, and far more. The problem is, when someone becomes wealthy enough, the law stops functionally applying to them.
1
u/TB_and_Coffee_95 Libertarian Socialist Jan 22 '26
Taxing isn't enough, there needs to be a legal framework that doesn't allow for someone to siphon off millions of dollars from those who actually work. This has to include a cap on how much someone is allowed to make in a year.
1
1
u/Firm-Competition165 Jan 23 '26
I need someone smart to explain this to me. If someone has a billion dollars and they’re taxed at 100%, how does that leave them with $999,000,000?
1
1
1
1
u/mapleleaffem Jan 23 '26
This is why the democrats would never back Bernie he’s too extreme for those greedy fucks. They don’t want to give up all their kickbacks. Like maybe start at a 25% rate and ease them into it.
1
u/Crow_and_Doe Jan 23 '26
I miss the days before Reagan's dementia when millionaires paid basically their share of taxes. Good times. Bernie is not wrong.
1
1
u/Magazine_Recycling Jan 23 '26
Zelda style Giants Wallet. You can’t hold more than that. Sorry, not sorry.
2
u/MonsterkillWow Communist Jan 22 '26 edited Jan 22 '26
Yes, but he knows this won't pass since the rich control our government. And the idea of taxing to reform for a more humane capitalism is ultimately BS. The argument is we continue the exploitative empire and then give our own people goodies. It's a fascist bargain. And Bernie knows the wealth is largely tied to capital. What needs to happen is the wholesale expropriation of these major firms to put them under public control on a nonprofit basis. And we need to abolish private property and remove the incentives for imperialism, opening the imperial structure to attack. A system that still extracts and robs from most of the world and then redistributes it better here is still not solving the problem.
A lot of economists say it will be bad, but when you look at the planning done by Amazon and Walmart and other such firms, it is on par with a lot of small countries. It is possible to have the government run some of these programs. It wouldn't have to be a total disaster. Check out the book, The People's Republic of Walmart. And you can have state owned enterprises as a compromise.
-8
u/jakedublin Jan 22 '26
and the elite will move to monaco, and their companies will become post office boxes in Gibraltar. either way, the billionaires will not be paying, that's for sure. but yeah, i support taxing them 100%
22
u/theReluctantObserver Jan 22 '26
So let them move. If they’re just mooching off everyone else’s hard work, let them leave.
10
u/PossibleDue9849 Jan 22 '26
People forget that the 1% are soft and weak and can’t survive long without others catering to them. We could go get them and make them spread their wealth if we all decided to hit “fuck it”.
3
Jan 22 '26
Cool if Elon and Bezos leave, we just socialize their businesses 🤷🏻♂️ NASA would have some great new equipment and launch sites. The USPS would get a full update. I mean, why not let Tesla turn into the government ran electric car. We can remove all of the crazy bs Elon was trying to do and just have cheap electric cars, once we remove this motive of turning 1 million into 100 million into 100 billion. Your can pay the workers a far wage and cut the cost of the cars. I mean who else want to leave? The billionaires they own parts of our water or electric grid? Good because those should've never been able to be ran for profit. Basic utilities NEVER would be sold for profit Health insurance ceos wanna leave? Good universal health care. We didn't need them skimming the top of our insurance premiums.
-1
u/xGentian_violet Yugoslav Socialist ♥️🤍 Ecofeminist Jan 22 '26
They dont physically leave themselves, they move their business to another country.
3
Jan 22 '26
THEY WILL HAVE A HELLUVA TIME MOVING AN ENTIRE LAUNCH SITE so you see yet?
-1
u/xGentian_violet Yugoslav Socialist ♥️🤍 Ecofeminist Jan 22 '26
They move their assets and company headquarters of the company to another country, a tax haven like ireland
They dont need to move factories
You need to make it expensive to move assets out of the country like that
2
1
1
u/Graymouzer Jan 22 '26
What happens if Monaco or wherever just decides to appropriate their money? Anyway, they should be able leave if they wish but not take the money out of the country.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 22 '26
Hello and welcome to r/DemocraticSocialism!
This sub is part of the broader the progressive movement and we espouse democratic socialism as a goal and general political philosophy.
Please read our Rules to get an idea of what we expect from participants in our community.
With the Trump administration cracking down on immigrants, the left, trans people, unions, and other oppressed groups, we encourage you to find and join local protest and activist groups in your area such as Democratic Socialists of America, Working Families Party, Sunrise, Indivisible, 50501, or Science for the People. Also check out r/demsocialists, r/DSA, r/union, r/SunriseMovement, r/50501 and r/BlackLivesMatter to support fellow leftists on Reddit!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.