• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Spends $575K on Vacation Home - Can Socialists Do That?

Bernie wants "the rich" to give up their money so that his followers can have nice things. Well, Bernie is looking like one of the rich - why isn't he ponying up? Why wait for others, when he's got plenty to give right away?

Long on caca talk, way short on specifics. I remain unconvinced.
 
First, Bernie is not rich. Second, it wouldn't matter if he was. Believing that the wealthy should pay more in taxes does NOT mean that person believes people shouldn't be allowed to become wealthy.
 
You are citing what Bernie has paid according to the laws that exist, and not according the laws that he advocates bringing into existence.

I agree, he should have paid more in taxes. He agrees, he should have paid more in taxes. What's your point here?

Surely he could stand to give a little more in that regard. But socialists are all about getting others to pony up more money, and never themselves. Charity always begins in someone else's home, according to them.

I will not dignify AM-radio drivel with a retort. I will say that I'm shocked this kind of simple-minded argument was so successful 40 years ago in getting people to screw themselves, their children, and their communities into making the rich get richer.

Orwell satirized his fellow Socialists because his own socialism had allowed him to interact with and observe other socialists so intimately.

That's wildly oversimplified. George Orwell opposed authoritarian socialism. He was very fond of libertarian socialism and democratic socialism. There's stark ideological differences here that you're just glossing over.
 
First, Bernie is not rich. Second, it wouldn't matter if he was. Believing that the wealthy should pay more in taxes does NOT mean that person believes people shouldn't be allowed to become wealthy.

Yeah, they only believe people should be treated differently under the law based on how much they make. I suppose that is TOTALLY better.
 
I agree, he should have paid more in taxes. He agrees, he should have paid more in taxes. What's your point here?

Why didn't he just donate to the government? You can do that you know.

I never understood why people that advocate higher taxes for themselves don't just give the government more money. Do they think the government will turn it down?
 
Why didn't he just donate to the government? You can do that you know.

Oh yes, and that would have a systematic difference. As long as Bernie Sanders holds out an idealistic crusade and is the single person payer higher taxes, that alone will provide the money necessary for the strong social safety nets that we need.
 
I read some threads and think that I should say something and then some, not so much. This is one of the "not so much" ones. If I want a better house then it would be hypocritical to criticize someone else for wanting the same thing as me.
 
Oh yes, and that would have a systematic difference. As long as Bernie Sanders holds out an idealistic crusade and is the single person payer higher taxes, that alone will provide the money necessary for the strong social safety nets that we need.

I never said it would, but at least he wouldn't be tormented so much by keeping more of his money. The horror of keeping your own money!
 
I agree, he should have paid more in taxes. He agrees, he should have paid more in taxes. What's your point here?

That he didn't do these things and is thus a hypocrite, like so many of the Left when it comes to their own personal behavior.
So predictable.

I will not dignify AM-radio drivel with a retort. I will say that I'm shocked this kind of simple-minded argument was so successful 40 years ago in getting people to screw themselves, their children, and their communities into making the rich get richer.

You act like wealth-creation is guaranteed, easy, and risk-free.
If it's so easy, then why don't the socialists then produce more of it themselves, instead of coveting that produced by others?


That's wildly oversimplified. George Orwell opposed authoritarian socialism. He was very fond of libertarian socialism and democratic socialism. There's stark ideological differences here that you're just glossing over.

Socialism inevitably breeds authoritarianism - how else to you force others to pony up what you want them to?
You can float as many pink unicorns as you like - but those don't exist in reality.
 
No, not "most" family estates. His proposal included an exemption of $3.5 million per person/$7 million per married couple. That knocks out about 99% or more of "family estates."

Then Bernie is an idiot. As estates are not taxed based on per married couple. If a Husband dies, it passes to the wife tax free. So he actually proposed higher taxes on most family estates as the current exemption per estate is $5.48m today and adjusts per inflation. ;)
 
First, Bernie is not rich. Second, it wouldn't matter if he was. Believing that the wealthy should pay more in taxes does NOT mean that person believes people shouldn't be allowed to become wealthy.

Bernie is rich.. you do not own 3 homes and not be rich. His net worth might be pauper level which it's not really because he has a Senators salary, collects Social Security and has his TSP fund (Federal retirement) .

Don't know how anybody would trust his tax releases.. his wife did them. She could even handle the finances of Burlington College. Err.. I mean the ex-Burlington College.
 
Then Bernie is an idiot. As estates are not taxed based on per married couple. If a Husband dies, it passes to the wife tax free. So he actually proposed higher taxes on most family estates as the current exemption per estate is $5.48m today and adjusts per inflation. ;)

Sure, he lowered the exemption from roughly $5.5m to $3.5m, and proposed an increase in the rate to (as I recall) 65%, which is absolutely a big tax increase for maybe the richest 0.2% or so of the population - the other 99.8% don't need to worry about estate taxes, and in fact the estate tax system is a big old tax LOOPHOLE for that 99.8%. When they die, their heirs get to write up the value of inherited assets to FMV on date of death, which allows unrecognized gain on those assets (say, the family home bought in 1960 for $25,000 that's now worth $250k) to never be taxed.

But the most basic of estate planning will allow husband to use $3.5 million of the exemption available to each person under Bernie's plan, and wife to use her $3.5m, for $7m total (under Bernie's numbers). Essentially, when husband dies in your example, the first $3.5 million will NOT go to wife tax free, but to a credit shelter trust that is taxed for estate purposes, but that can be tapped (income and/or principle) to take care of wife during her life. When she dies, whatever is in the credit shelter trust goes to the kids (usually) outside her estate and estate tax free.
 
Last edited:
Sure, he lowered the exemption from roughly $5.5m to $3.5m, and proposed an increase in the rate to (as I recall) 65%, which is absolutely a big tax increase for maybe the richest 0.2% or so of the population - the other 99.8% don't need to worry about estate taxes, and in fact the estate tax system is a big old tax LOOPHOLE for that 99.8%. When they die, their heirs get to write up the value of inherited assets to FMV on date of death, which allows unrecognized gain on those assets (say, the family home bought in 1960 for $25,000 that's now worth $250k) to never be taxed.

But the most basic of estate planning will allow husband to use $3.5 million of the exemption available to each person under Bernie's plan, and wife to use her $3.5m, for $7m total (under Bernie's numbers). Essentially, when husband dies in your example, the first $3.5 million will NOT go to wife tax free, but to a credit shelter trust that is taxed for estate purposes, but that can be tapped (income and/or principle) to take care of wife during her life. When she dies, whatever is in the credit shelter trust goes to the kids (usually) outside her estate and estate tax free.

It's not a tax loophole if it exists by law.

Bernie's plan is a tax hike on the widow. The widow will have to pay taxes on her husband's half of the $3.5m, despite the fact nothing changed hands. It did go father to son or mother to daughter. But Husband to wife under joint tenant status and under today's laws the wife would pay no taxes on it at that point it, will only get taxed if it's over the $5.4m threshold.

Btw, I know alot of family farmers in PA who's property value is above $3.5m who would be forced to sell their farmers under Bernie's plan because they live month to month and the only value they have is in their land that they farm.
 
It's not a tax loophole if it exists by law.

OK, call it a tax benefit, a freebie, whatever. Point is for 99.8% or so of the country, there is no "death tax" there is in fact a "death freebie/benefit" which is all the unrealized gains on mom's property when she dies go POOF! and are never subject to any income tax. If she's sold that GE stock bought 30 years ago for $2 a share, and is now worth $30, she's have paid income tax on $28/share gain. If she's holding GE at death, that $28 gain is NEVER taxed - kiddies can sell it tomorrow, pay no estate tax, no income tax.

Bernie's plan is a tax hike on the widow. The widow will have to pay taxes on her husband's half of the $3.5m, despite the fact nothing changed hands. It did go father to son or mother to daughter. But Husband to wife under joint tenant status and under today's laws the wife would pay no taxes on it at that point it, will only get taxed if it's over the $5.4m threshold.

I can't follow your example, but I do estate taxes as part of my living and I'm telling you with 100% certainty that if there is a $3.5 million per person exemption (Bernie's plan), any decent estate plan will allow a married couple to pass $7 million to the kids estate tax free. Under existing rules, that couple can pass about $11 million to the kids estate tax free.

Btw, I know alot of family farmers in PA who's property value is above $3.5m who would be forced to sell their farmers under Bernie's plan because they live month to month and the only value they have is in their land that they farm.

I doubt if you actually do know many who have property free and clear worth that much (and it would be $7 million under Bernie's plan, remember) who aren't also sitting on nice investment portfolios. I've seen many studies on who pays estate tax, and the poor family farmer, land rich but cash poor, is sort of like an albino bear - yes, they exist but are VERY rare.
 
OK, call it a tax benefit, a freebie, whatever. Point is for 99.8% or so of the country, there is no "death tax" there is in fact a "death freebie/benefit" which is all the unrealized gains on mom's property when she dies go POOF! and are never subject to any income tax. If she's sold that GE stock bought 30 years ago for $2 a share, and is now worth $30, she's have paid income tax on $28/share gain. If she's holding GE at death, that $28 gain is NEVER taxed - kiddies can sell it tomorrow, pay no estate tax, no income tax.

It's not a tax benefit or a freebie. It's not taxable.



I can't follow your example, but I do estate taxes as part of my living and I'm telling you with 100% certainty that if there is a $3.5 million per person exemption (Bernie's plan), any decent estate plan will allow a married couple to pass $7 million to the kids estate tax free. Under existing rules, that couple can pass about $11 million to the kids estate tax free.

I am not disagreeing.. I was waiting for you to admit it's a tax hike across the board on many people who fell below the $11m mark. ;)



I doubt if you actually do know many who have property free and clear worth that much (and it would be $7 million under Bernie's plan, remember) who aren't also sitting on nice investment portfolios. I've seen many studies on who pays estate tax, and the poor family farmer, land rich but cash poor, is sort of like an albino bear - yes, they exist but are VERY rare.

Really? You doubt that I know farmers in DC-Baltimore metro area which include Gettysburg area? LOL. It's PA Swiss country, everybody is related to a farmer. There is property in Allentown, PA (Philly area) going for $4m on 285 acres (that's $14,000 an acre). Or better put.. in a town I grew up in.. there is a 58 acre farm selling for $1.7m, that's $29,310 per acre. Based on the FMV in the area, owning more then 238 acres makes you subject to tax.
 
Last edited:
Bernie hasn’t proposed some utopian society their everybody have the same salary. Instead he has used the Scandinavian countries as positive examples, countries with a lot more taxes especially for the rich and also a lot more welfare and equality but at the same time those countries have a lot of millionaires and of course also billionaires.

They have also a lot of successful private businesses like for example Danish Lego and the Maersk group and Swedish H & M and IKEA and innovative IT companies have started in those countries like for example Mojang (Minecraft) and Spotify.

Also the Scandinavian countries rank high both then it comes to innovation as well as competitiveness.

These Are the World's Most Innovative Economies - Bloomberg

World Economic Forum: most competitive countries - Business Insider

Also free college can be seen as both right wing as well as left wing idea, because children are individuals in their own right and not only a collective part of a family. Therefor their ability to compete for success and prosperity in their lives’ shouldn’t be determined by the size of their parents’ wallets.
 
A. I don't know, or care, where he got the money or, perhaps, is planning on getting the money. Perhaps Bill and Hillary Clinton gave it to him for services rendered.

B. A professor at our university was proud of being a communist and sneered and said I hated him because he was a communist. I laughed and said, "No, it's because in the sixties and seventies you sent kids to the barricades while you sat at home clipping AT&T coupons."

"In the revolution we all have our role to play."
"True, and you always played the role that was perfectly safe and made you rich."

You have to remember that in the revolution they all have their role to play.

Some play the role of shooting police officers and others play the role of President of the United States.
 
It's not a tax benefit or a freebie. It's not taxable.

I have no idea what distinction you're trying to make. The estate tax rules, which tax some small number of estates, but allow EVERYONE ELSE (the other 99.8%) to step up mom's property to FMV at death, is a big tax benefit to just about every person who inherits property.

I am not disagreeing.. I was waiting for you to admit it's a tax hike across the board on many people who fell below the $11m mark. ;)

OK, you mean admit it like I did here, post #39, "Sure, he lowered the exemption from roughly $5.5m to $3.5m, and proposed an increase in the rate to (as I recall) 65%, which is absolutely a big tax increase for maybe the richest 0.2% or so of the population"?? :roll:

Really? You doubt that I know farmers in DC-Baltimore metro area which include Gettysburg area? LOL. It's PA Swiss country, everybody is related to a farmer. There is property in Allentown, PA (Philly area) going for $4m on 285 acres (that's $14,000 an acre). Or better put.. in a town I grew up in.. there is a 58 acre farm selling for $1.7m, that's $29,310 per acre. Based on the FMV in the area, owning more then 238 acres makes you subject to tax.

I'm just telling you what I said previously which is all the data I've seen, and there have been many studies, is that the land rich, cash poor family hit with estate taxes is VERY, VERY rare. You listed a farm going for $4m. Well, they need a portfolio and other assets totalling $3m before subject to tax under Bernie's plan.

And in the area where property goes for $29k/acre, I'm positive there aren't many people sitting on farms exceeding 238 acres.
 
That he didn't do these things and is thus a hypocrite, like so many of the Left when it comes to their own personal behavior.
So predictable.

You seem to have deeply misread what I said. Sanders agrees the tax rates should be higher, not that he committed a crime by not paying his fair share of taxes.


You act like wealth-creation is guaranteed, easy, and risk-free.
If it's so easy, then why don't the socialists then produce more of it themselves, instead of coveting that produced by others?

There's plenty of wealthy left-wingers, so this is a pretty absurd position.

Socialism inevitably breeds authoritarianism - how else to you force others to pony up what you want them to?
You can float as many pink unicorns as you like - but those don't exist in reality.

Even if every form of socialism bred authoritarianism, it still doesn't breed the corporate plutocracy and elite authoritarianism the way that capitalism does. But the premise is also flawed, because libertarian socialist societies, of the two that have existed, did not "lead" in any meaningful sense to authoritarian socialism. Sure, state socialism is worse than authoritarian socialism, but given that neoliberal capitalism seems to turn equally into socialism as it does fascism, there's something to be said about it being as dangerous in the long term as authoritarian socialism.
 
Also free college can be seen as both right wing as well as left wing idea, because children are individuals in their own right and not only a collective part of a family. Therefor their ability to compete for success and prosperity in their lives’ shouldn’t be determined by the size of their parents’ wallets.

A bill which has provisions for publicly funded post-secondary education should enjoy bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it will not when legislators are incapable of doing their job due to the campaign finance system which has corrupted public policy with private backing.
 
You seem to have deeply misread what I said. Sanders agrees the tax rates should be higher, not that he committed a crime by not paying his fair share of taxes.

There's plenty of wealthy left-wingers, so this is a pretty absurd position.

Even if every form of socialism bred authoritarianism, it still doesn't breed the corporate plutocracy and elite authoritarianism the way that capitalism does. But the premise is also flawed, because libertarian socialist societies, of the two that have existed, did not "lead" in any meaningful sense to authoritarian socialism. Sure, state socialism is worse than authoritarian socialism, but given that neoliberal capitalism seems to turn equally into socialism as it does fascism, there's something to be said about it being as dangerous in the long term as authoritarian socialism.

If you really simplify it, you have two main types of socialism Social democrats and Communists.

Social democrats consist of movements from social liberals to democratic socialists and believe in democracy and reformism. They don’t wanted or haven’t been able to abolish capitalist but they have been able to create welfare systems and a lot more equal societies. They have come to power in countries that was already democratic or there a peaceful transition to democracy was possible.

Today the most socialist countries of those countries like for example the Scandinavian countries ranks very high on for example the democracy index and press freedom index. Countries like Sweden have also a strong civil society.

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Communist like Marxism-Leninism believed in revolution and that an “enlightened elite” should rule without opposition. Those group was able to abolish capitalist and sometimes better the conditions for the poor but at the same time it leads to brutal tyranny and mostly failed economic policies. Also the countries they came to power in was before the revolution dictatorships without the possibility to peaceful transition to democracy.

Of course you have also other types of socialism like anarchist and syndicalist and you can make a lot more complex descriptions of the history of socialism.

A bill which has provisions for publicly funded post-secondary education should enjoy bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it will not when legislators are incapable of doing their job due to the campaign finance system which has corrupted public policy with private backing.

Also here in Sweden students have only to work during the summer break while as I understand it in the USA many students also work a lot during the semesters. This I suppose can make it hard to both have the time and energy to focus on your often expensive college education.
 
Last edited:
So what?

He is not allowed to spend his own money?
 
So what?

He is not allowed to spend his own money?

Shouldn't that income have been taxable? Why are lottery winnings taxable but not an inheritance? They are both "income from all sources". I guess the tax code is fine as long as it applies to other people's income.
 
Back
Top Bottom