Sanders denounces 'rigged' US economic, political system that rewards the rich

[Uncle Joe]

A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies, Patriotic Millionaires, Fight Inequality Alliance, and Oxfam has found that America’s wealthiest individuals have seen their ranks grow in the past five years, with US billionaires becoming $2 trillion richer during the pandemic alone.

Globally there are 2,660 billionaires, according to the Oxfam report. As of November 30, 2021, those billionaires held a combined wealth of $13.76 trillion. The US alone accounts for 740 of those billionaires, holding $5.1 trillion collectively.

(snip)

Campaign contributions have seen a steep rise since then, with nearly half of the so-called super PAC money coming from just 25 billionaires over the past decade.

(snip)

The Oxfam report said that a wealth tax of 2 percent on individuals holding over $5 million, 3 percent for those with over $50 million, and 5 percent for those with over $1 billion would bring in $928.39 billion annually.

(snip)

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/01/22/675260/Sanders-rigged-economic-and-political-system

[WA-03 Democrat]

1. Why

Do populist love the word “rigged” so much? I hated it every time Trump said it too.

[Uncle Joe]

3. I

believe it's because tens of millions of Americans believe that if something quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

This didn't happen overnight or begin with the insurrectionist.

P.S. I would even add the orange buffoon was a natural or inevitable product of that system but future Trumps won't be as stupid.

[HariSeldon]

6. "Systematically biased" is a clumsy phrase

It sounds academic and, therefore, elitist, especially when particularly trying to engage with working-class Americans.

I do actually think that "rigged" is an appropriate term in this context, as it comes from the "rigging" of a sailing ship, which helps determine the direction in which the ship moves or the storm wind it can tolerate.

[Walleye]

2. Wouldn't a wealth tax require a constitutional amendment?

[Uncle Joe]

4. With this Supreme Court; I have no doubt, however

A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional
By Calvin H. Johnson, John T. Kipp Chair in Corporate and Business Law, University of Texas*

As most readers who follow the 2020 campaign proposals are aware, Elizabeth Warren has proposed an annual wealth tax of 2% for wealth greater than $50 million and 3% for wealth greater than $1 billion. Various pundits have said that the tax is “probably unconstitutional”1 and that the Supreme Court could “stop the wealth tax dead in its tracks.”2

Warren’s wealth tax is constitutional under the standards laid down by the Founders, as this article will demonstrate. Apportionment of a wealth or land tax by population would now require the injustice of substantially higher tax rates in poorer states: when that happens, under the Founders’ standards, the tax is not a direct tax for which apportionment is required. Apportionment was not written to protect wealth from assault, as proponents of its unconstitutionality now claim, but rather to reach wealth by what was thought to be the best then available measure of wealth.

The Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 4, requires that a “direct tax” must be apportioned among the states by population.3 For the Founders, a necessary element to be a direct tax is that apportionment among the states by population must be reasonable and just. Thus import taxes (the impost), excise taxes, duties, carriage taxes and now real estate and wealth taxes have been expelled from the definition of direct tax, sometimes by the operation of ordinary language and sometimes by Supreme Court decision.

Real estate and wealth taxes were once considered direct taxes because they were the taxes that the states would use to satisfy a requisition and because real estate and wealth were presumed to be equal among the states. Today, however, apportionment of a wealth tax among the states by population is neither just nor reasonable. Wealth per capita in poor Mississippi is under half of the per capita wealth in relatively rich District of Columbia.4 Apportionment by population would mean that tax rates in Mississippi would have to be more than twice the rates in DC. The result would tax residents of poor states much more harshly than residents of wealthy states. That result has no justification in history or policy: it would simply arise by necessity from the fact that Mississippi has a smaller tax base over which to spread its quota. Thus, when it was recognized that wealth and real estate are not equally distributed per capita so that apportionment forced substantially higher tax rates in poorer states, the taxes on wealth and real estate could not be treated as direct taxes. Apportionment would not be just or reasonable.

(snip)

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/

[Walleye]

5. Interesting. Thanks for the article. I'm all for it I think most of us are.

Have any of the senators introduced legislation to this effect?. Plus I’m sure today’s Supreme Court would knock it down in a minute.Or some federal judge in Texas would strike down the whole thing

[Uncle Joe]

7. Excellent!

Yes in August of 2020

Sanders, Colleagues Introduce Tax on Billionaire Wealth Gains to Provide Health Care for All

WASHINGTON, August 6 – Today, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced a 60-percent tax on the windfall wealth increases of billionaires during this pandemic in order to pay for all out-of-pocket medical expenses for every person in America for a year. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced companion legislation in the House.

The Make Billionaires Pay Act would tax the $731 billion in wealth accumulated by 467 billionaires—the richest 0.001% of America—a from March 18th until August 5th, a period in which 5.4 million Americans recently lost their health insurance and 50 million applied for unemployment insurance. The funds from this emergency tax would be used to cover all necessary healthcare expenses of the uninsured and underinsured, including prescription drugs, for one year.

(snip)

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/sanders-colleagues-introduce-tax-on-billionaire-wealth-gains-to-provide-health-care-for-all/

I agree on your second point regarding the current SC, however this is both promoting more public awareness and laying the groundwork for November because without major wins for the Democratic Party in the Senate, there is little chance of changing that dynamic.

[cbabe]

8. 'The super-rich live on a different planet':

the guardian.com Jan. 22.

Why richies can’t solve a problem they don’t see.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Thank you cbabe

[cbabe]

10. Would be interesting to write from the poor side of

the tracks as a companion piece.

How the poor survive in contrast. Not everyone can flip out a Visa card to solve a problem.

How many snap payments equal one fancy dinner.

How many homeless in one encampment versus how many in one McMansion.

The cost of a shelter hot shower versus a spa day.

Coffee cup spare change versus bezos couch change.

Think the poor need to know how obscene it all is. And that are never going to be welcomed inside the gates.

[Uncle Joe]

11. I believe so as well.

That's the ironic thing, the corporate media; are quick to criticize the dysfunction of the Internet by stating "people only go to locations where the message is something they already agree with" but their business model in large part prevents them from avoiding that trap or least giving quality coverage and I'm not talking about left/right so much as up/down.

So our political leaders are denied critical information to make the best policy judgments for the nation and/or the world and they're kept or encouraged by accident or design to remain in a left/right only bubble by the corporate media, never looking too close at up/down.

This dynamic if maintained long enough will/would inevitably result in an increasingly dysfunctional, polarized society.

[cbabe]

12. True. This can be overcome by 'searching' for stories on

the other side. Like listening to right wing radio to decode their language, grasp their talking points to craft crafty rebuttals.

I also look for money motives in corporate media. For example, media (npr, CBC) lauding death of musician Meatloaf, hoping to crank up sales.

But not disclosing his anti/vaccine stance. Responsible for death and sickness of how many fans?

[Moebym]

13. We know this already. What I care about is what Sanders has actually done about it.

I'd have more respect for him if he backed up all that talk (and it is a lot) with concrete action.

[cbabe]

14. Like what? He's only one guy without a magic wand. Keeping

the talking points active is actually pretty good.