It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns. Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.
Interestingly, the median household income in the United States is $49,777 — right near the point where the Democratic advantage disappears and the Republicans take over.
www.debt.org...
While Democrats lose support as income increases, there seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.
But this phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood. A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the riches families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent.
originally posted by: Atsbhct
originally posted by: neo96
Bernie Sanders is the American equivalent to Stalin or Mao.
You think Bernie Sanders wants to murder millions of Americans?
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bluntone22
And Donald Trump will be 74. Are you saying it would also be foolish to vote for him?
originally posted by: ColeYounger
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: 727Sky
Too much money is being redistributed to billionaires. The economy is rigged. It's organized crime.
Socialism is the only answer. Why is one type of theft better than the other type. The billionaires have been raping the workers for years. It's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way!
I think Bernie is great! I hope he wins!
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bluntone22
And Donald Trump will be 74. Are you saying it would also be foolish to vote for him?
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: StoutBroux
The problem with your theory is that rich people will not be paying the brunt of the costs.
Little people do.
Taxes on taxes.
Sanders likes to point at Denmark for his examples but doesn't realize they are stepping away from social programs because they don't work.
The proposal would cut the wealth of billionaires in the United States in half in 15 years and entirely close the gap in wealth growth between billionaires and the average American family, according to University of California Berkeley economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, who advised Sanders on his plan. Hitting the richest 180,000 American households, Saez and Zucman estimate the tax would raise $4.35 trillion over the next decade, which Sanders says would go toward paying for his biggest policies, including Medicare-for-all, affordable housing, and universal childcare.The proposal would cut the wealth of billionaires in the United States in half in 15 years and entirely close the gap in wealth growth between billionaires and the average American family, according to University of California Berkeley economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, who advised Sanders on his plan. Hitting the richest 180,000 American households, Saez and Zucman estimate the tax would raise $4.35 trillion over the next decade, which Sanders says would go toward paying for his biggest policies, including Medicare-for-all, affordable housing, and universal childcare.
***SNIP***
Here’s how it would work. Sanders wants to levy a 1 percent tax on wealth above $32 million, for married couples, and then slowly increase the tax for wealthier households: a 2 percent for wealth between $50 to $250 million; 3 percent for wealth from $250 to $500 million; 4 percent from $500 million to $1 billion, 5 percent from $1 to $2.5 billion, 6 percent from $2.5 to $5 billion, 7 percent from $5 to $10 billion, and 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion. Same thing goes for super-rich single people, except the wealth thresholds are cut in half. In other words, an unmarried person with $16.5 million in wealth would pay a $5,000 tax, as would a married couple with $32.5 million in net worth.
With more brackets for individuals and families, Sanders’s proposal is estimated to raise $1.6 trillion more in revenue than Warren’s plan over 10 years. Whereas Warren’s plan has the same thresholds for individuals and married couples, which could enable some wealthy couples to evade the tax by getting divorced, Sanders’s plan closes that loophole.
As Vox’s Matt Yglesias explained, most middle class Americans already pay a version of a wealth tax: a property tax to their local government on their homes, the most common asset among middle-income Americans. But property taxes don’t get at all the wealth super-rich people keep in stocks or other assets. Sanders also has a proposal to dramatically expand the estate tax, topping out at a maximum rate of 77 percent. Currently, the estate tax maxes out at 40 percent.
www.vox.com...
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: 727Sky
Too much money is being redistributed to billionaires. The economy is rigged. It's organized crime.
Socialism is the only answer. Why is one type of theft better than the other type. The billionaires have been raping the workers for years. It's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way!
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: 727Sky
There will be people that will actually vote for higher taxes, fewer choices, bigger government, less freedoms.
Bernie is proof.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: 727Sky
I'm still struggling with the mysteries of American politics.
Would it be fair to say that Bernie Sanders is the American equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Bluntone22
I've yet to get a cogent answer to this but if everyone can agree that our government is corrupt, then how is making them bigger and giving them more money going to make them less corrupt?