[QUOTE]Sen. Bernie Sanders and his wife, following pressure from Democratic presidential campaign rival Hillary Clinton, released their full 2014 federal tax return on Friday, showing a combined income of more than $205,000.
Sanders released summaries of the couple's 2014 federal and state returns in June. Friday’s release included the federal return's attached schedules and offered more background on the couple’s finances, including charitable gifts of $8,350. Sanders pledged during Thursday's heated debate with Clinton to release earlier returns at a later date.
Sanders and his wife, Jane, paid $27,653 in federal income taxes and $7,903 in Vermont income taxes in 2014. Their income is largely derived from Sanders’ Senate salary of $174,000 and Social Security benefits.
Source:
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/15/sen-bernie-sanders-releases-tax-returns-2014/83074944/[/url]
Tax Return from 2014 here:
[url]https://go.berniesanders.com/page/-/Bernie%20Taxes%20Full.pdf[/url] [/QUOTE]
If you care about how much he makes relative to others:
Average US Income per family is about $81,000
Average US Income for a senator is $174,000, so he's right on the dot. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress[/url]
This is to be expected of a Congressman, no? He's making an understandable wage for a DC politician. This release isn't really anything exciting, which is a good thing. The Clinton campaign was probably hoping they could make him look like some kind of hypocrite for being mega wealthy or something
I wonder what new excuse Clinton will use to not release her transcripts.
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;50141121]I wonder what new excuse Clinton will use to not release her transcripts.[/QUOTE]
her excuse has been for the republicans to do the same for a while now.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;50141115]This is to be expected of a Congressman, no? He's making an understandable wage for a DC politician. This release isn't really anything exciting, which is a good thing. The Clinton campaign was probably hoping they could make him look like some kind of hypocrite for being mega wealthy or something[/QUOTE]
I can imagine a SuperPac paining him as a hypocrite. He makes at most 3 times as much as the average American which might make uneducated and uninformed voters angry, even though Clinton makes 150 times more than Bernie.
Interesting links here:
[url]http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/barack-obama/[/url]
[url]http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/bernie-sanders/[/url]
[url]http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/hillary-clinton/[/url]
[url]http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/ted-cruz/[/url]
[url]http://www.davemanuel.com/net-worth/donald-trump/[/url] <-- this is a terribly written article, for whatever reason
Well he is a senator so his paycheck is high for a reason, but nothing compared to Clinton
This is non-news unless you are pretty uneducated.
[QUOTE=Tudd;50141289]This is non-news unless you are pretty uneducated.[/QUOTE]Its news because he got pressed to release them during the debate, and he said he would. So its really just him following through on his word.
The dude holds his word. What's more he's in Vatican city (or was I guess) to talk about income inequality and the megarich, at a time when it's come to light that they hide their money offshore and out of country, and he demonstrated that he does not do any of that.
Also note it's combined income too
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50141111]If you care about how much he makes relative to others:
Average US Income per family is about $81,000
Average US Income for a senator is $174,000, so he's right on the dot. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress[/URL][/QUOTE]
"Average" in this context is meaningless, and most families make nowhere near $81,000. The $81,000 statistic refers to the average earning of individuals with [B]doctorates[/B]. Household income per the same metric closer to $70,000, and substantially less if considered with a metric that considers the disparity seen in income distribution.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;50141115]This is to be expected of a Congressman, no? He's making an understandable wage for a DC politician. This release isn't really anything exciting, which is a good thing. The Clinton campaign was probably hoping they could make him look like some kind of hypocrite for being mega wealthy or something[/QUOTE]
Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"
[QUOTE=Ridge;50143786]Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"[/QUOTE]
relative to every other candidate in the running, it totally does.
[QUOTE=Ridge;50143786]Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"[/QUOTE]
And yet despite making so much, making sure people get fair compensation for their work (Which they generally speaking, don't) is still the front-and-centre of his campaign.
Henry Wallace was a man of the people who tried his best to elevate the common man, he was branded a communist/socialist/"closest thing the Soviets ever did to electing a public official" in his own time, and he died an incredibly rich man with thiving agricultural businesses that he left to his family. Sanders is a pauper in comparison.
Being wealthy and successful does not prevent you from having a heart and caring about people. That's a morality issue.
[QUOTE=Ridge;50143786]Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"[/QUOTE]
The same could be said for Clinton, who made more than that in a single speech. Or Trump, who owns some of the largest companies in the country. Or Cruz, who makes over a million a year. Bernie makes the least of the four frontrunners in this election.
[QUOTE=Ridge;50143786]Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"[/QUOTE]
If politicians made no money they'd only be further incentivized to take bribes.
[QUOTE=Ridge;50143786]Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"[/QUOTE]
He's in a high ranking government office, it makes sense for him to make that much money. It's a prestigious job, but unlike other high-paying jobs, his job is to represent the people who don't make as much as him. Considering he has no high-paying donors, he is one of the few people in Congress trying to pass legislation for everyone, rather than for themselves and the rich that pay them.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50143813]Man of the people means he represents people's interests. You don't need to be one of them to represent them, sorta like a lawyer's relationship to a client. You don't need to be lead poisoned to start a class action lawsuit representing lead poisoned families.
And 200k isn't exactly 1% income. I would put rich at 7 figures.[/QUOTE]
$200,000 isn't anywhere near 1%. It's "wealthy" but not "rich." Loads of people make 6-figure salaries. You don't get into the one percent until you get to people that make multi-million dollar bonuses and have millions in capital gains. At that point your salary doesn't matter because it's not your biggest source of income. (Unless you have a multimillion dollar salary because you're the CEO of Goldman Sachs or something.)
My point is, $200,000 is not a huge salary in respect to the super-rich. It might be to the average man, but 200,000k is a bad day on the markets to some.
[QUOTE=Ridge;50143786]Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"[/QUOTE]
As the combined income for couple? That's not actually that above average
[editline]16th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Flicky;50143847]The same could be said for Clinton, who made more than that in a single speech. Or Trump, who owns some of the largest companies in the country. Or Cruz, who makes over a million a year. Bernie makes the least of the four frontrunners in this election.[/QUOTE]
Trump just owns property, it is by no means one of the largest companies in america
Not really anything to criticise, he earns what a Senator is paid. You might think that's too much but that's not his decision.
[QUOTE=Ridge;50143786]Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"[/QUOTE]
so what does it make you if you make millions per year? or more than $200,000 for a single speech?
If you think $200,000 a year is rich, you don't know how fucked up the distribution of wealth is in this country.
the big bang theory hacks make 1 million an episode and some of you people really think that the Sanders family making 200k in a year COMBINED is making him not "a man of the people" holy shit this shit is so fucked up.
I mean if we don't see some serious changes in the wealth distribution within the next 20 years we are in for some really really bad shit
[QUOTE=Ridge;50143786]Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"[/QUOTE]
Then how else is he supposed to gather the funds to campaign for president without a superPAC?
Yes, it sucks. But you have to be rich to run for president. And those with money are more-than-capable of realizing they have to much money and others should get a piece of it too.
$200,000 is neither rich nor wealthy. Rich is seven figures, over a million. Wealthy is when you have enough money and investments that it will persist long after your death, when your family, your children and grand children could do literally nothing and still bring in millions just because of what you did. Rich is incidental, wealth is hereditary.
[QUOTE=Ridge;50143786]Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"[/QUOTE]
Cruz is believed to rake it in by more than a million every year. Trump is a yuuge businessman who makes bank at exorbitant rates.
Hillary made more than 200k by simply holding a speech that she [I]refuses to release the transcripts of[/I].
By comparison, yes, he is a man of the people. Also, if you think 200k is "rich" by any means, then you have no clue what wealth inequality is like in America
The only scandal here is that Bernie paid more in federal taxes than General Electric
[QUOTE=Ridge;50143786]Making $200,000/yr isn't exactly a man "of the people"[/QUOTE]
have you been living in the same country as everyone else or do you have some sort of warped sense on how human geography & income works?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.