A large country like the USA have a lot of political inertia (like EU). Realising this, I am impressed that Obama was able to introduce "Obama care". This reform made the USA a bit more civilised than it was before. If Bernie got a chance at it, maybe some other reform would be introduced, making the country even better. But as @Thucydides says, this single or few improvements would probably discourage his many "belivers" that now seem to hoping for a revolution. :)

"It is not a big difference if you own 2 or 20 million dollars."

I don't know what you're talking about; that's a humongous difference. $2,000,000 will comfortably provide an individual for life, allow them to live incredibly luxuriously, fund multiple business ventures, and contribute philanthropically. Two million dollars is substantial equity that would pay off any loan or bills that come up.

$20,000,000 will comfortably provide for an individual, their family, their family's family, and beyond. It would fund any start up they could ever dream of. They would own land wherever they wanted and they would be able to profit more off of letting their money sit in a bank than they would by working. They could make themselves richer by stashing their money in offshore accounts and avoiding taxes they should be more than happy to pay, and that's exactly what they do. They can freely donate thousands or more to political candidates who pledge to assist them in any way possible. They can fund speculative interests that could make or break the lives of hundreds of people at little relative risk (what's a million dollars when you have 19 more?). They can push the system in the direction that makes them richer by throwing money at it.

$2,000,000 is successful and wealthy. $20,000,000 is kingly.

If we fixed our rigged tax system, which *only* Bernie Sanders would attempt to do, then kings would pay taxes too instead of stashing their funds elsewhere and using small sums of their fortune to ruin the lives of others for their own benefit. That's what they do today.

So, again, please tell me how there is no difference between 2 and 20 million.

@bo_sox48. You say that "$20,000,000 will comfortably provide for an individual, their family, their family's family, and beyond." And you are right there, but you are missing the point!

What is the economical benefit of raising those family members with the idea that they don't need to do anything useful in their entire lives?

And frankly ,I do not think that the person that initially generated that fortune care that much about his lazy family members. He/she probably consider them all as being parasites anyhow.

The economical benefit is much higher, for everyone, if these family members do something worthwhile/useful with their lives

Are you asking me to explain to you the economical benefits of getting rich?

"You're telling me the rallying cry in the 1760s was 'No taxation'? Seems incomplete somehow."

You're right. That's why we must use our representation to vote against taxation by Bernie.

"refuse to do their jobs"

You mean being principled is now a fault?

"It is not a big difference if you own 2 or 20 million dollars."

In the long term, it makes lots of difference. Why do you think a person who has made millions of dollars (obviously because their service was more useful to society) must give those millions of dollars back to the leeches of society? Moreover, you seem to be suggesting capping wealth at a certain amount, say $2 million. What incentive would there be to earn the extra $18 million?

"I am impressed that Obama was able to introduce "Obama care". This reform made the USA a bit more civilised than it was before."

Obamacare is the worst thing that has happened to America. Premiums are far more expensive than before it was passed.

"What is the economical benefit of raising those family members with the idea that they don't need to do anything useful in their entire lives?"

They can pass it on to their designated recipients after they die or even during their lifetime. It's their money, none of your business. In fact, many rich people give their money to charity.

I don't think I would consider Gerrymandering as 'principled'.
But that's all I'm going to say as Internet discussion of politics are usually biased or a hate-festival.

""refuse to do their jobs"

You mean being principled is now a fault?"
Nananana boo boo we won't even have a vote over Garland isn't principle, it's immature. They could at least reject him and give him that closure. That's at least some principle.

" Moreover, you seem to be suggesting capping wealth at a certain amount, say $2 million."
Higher taxes =/= a cap on wealth

"They can pass it on to their designated recipients after they die or even during their lifetime. It's their money, none of your business."
The uber-wealthy passing their money on to their kids encourages an established and unfaltering economic class, a landed aristocracy. The US has only recently thought preventing the landed aristocracy from being planted into society is bad. Economic classes should be fluid based on how willing individuals are to work for it, and any hindrance to this must be smashed down.

"You're right. That's why we must use our representation to vote against taxation by Bernie."
"Obamacare is the worst thing that has happened to America."
"the leeches of society"

Oh, so you really *are* descending into self-parody. Thanks for confirming.

"I don't think I would consider Gerrymandering as 'principled'.
But that's all I'm going to say as Internet discussion of politics are usually biased or a hate-festival."

Gerrymandering and refusing to "do their jobs" are completely different concepts.

"The uber-wealthy passing their money on to their kids encourages an established and unfaltering economic class, a landed aristocracy. The US has only recently thought preventing the landed aristocracy from being planted into society is bad. Economic classes should be fluid based on how willing individuals are to work for it, and any hindrance to this must be smashed down."

If the parent has the money to pass on, then he has already generated sufficient value to society to cover that of his descendants. Moreover, the facts simply don't support your narrative. 1,191 of the 1,826 billionaires are self-made. And additional 405 inherited money but still worked to get where they are. Only 230 are actually lazy bums sitting on their bags of cash.
http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-people-in-the-world-2015-4

"Oh, so you really *are* descending into self-parody. "

I consider liberals to always be self-parodying.

*An additional

"1,191 of the 1,826 billionaires are self-made. And additional 405 inherited money but still worked to get where they are. Only 230 are actually lazy bums sitting on their bags of cash."
Thank you, estate tax :)

They could still easily live comfortably with estate tax assuming the wealth gets passed along family lines for decades. Estate tax is about the most immoral tax there is, gaining from a person's death. Moreover, if you are happy with the results of said estate tax, why do you want Bernie's socialistic system for?

Those who kick and scream about not getting every cent of stuffy wealth they didn't earn personally are childish and morally bankrupt (wah wah the government that protects wants me to pay my dues as a citizen and give back to my country to keep it running, it's just not FAIR). It's not profiteering from death, it's equivalent to a property tax. If you want to consider this gaining from death, then surely you'd be willing to recognize that inheritance is itself gaining from death? Inheritance of this sort of sum is a major transfer of wealth to a private individual who didn't lift a finger for it. I do, however, believe that money given to charities in the wills of the wealthy should be exempt of the estate tax.

Also, at risk of getting into a death match with JECE:
a) Bernie's not a socialist, he's simply the closest thing mainstream American politics has had to one in a very long time.
b) I'm not a socialist either. I'm a centrist. My views are to the right of Bernie. I support him as a candidate, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he has to offer.

"I consider liberals to always be self-parodying."

"I know you are but what am I"? Oh, leon.

The Bait of Babylon.

"Those who kick and scream about not getting every cent of stuffy wealth they didn't earn personally are childish and morally bankrupt (wah wah the government that protects wants me to pay my dues as a citizen and give back to my country to keep it running, it's just not FAIR)."

I agree that the government needs funding. It can get this through a variety of sources including tariffs, which both Sanders and Trump are currently advocating for. Even if there must be tax, it should be a flat tax, perhaps with exemption for the bottom 10%, because that is the only truly fair tax. If you're rich, you get taxed more. It's a basic matter of proportions.

"It's not profiteering from death, it's equivalent to a property tax. If you want to consider this gaining from death, then surely you'd be willing to recognize that inheritance is itself gaining from death? Inheritance of this sort of sum is a major transfer of wealth to a private individual who didn't lift a finger for it."

The difference between the government taking the money after death and the chosen inheritors taking the money is that the latter is the will of the deceased person, and, ultimately, it should be his decision what happens with the money after his death.

"I do, however, believe that money given to charities in the wills of the wealthy should be exempt of the estate tax."

Oh, so if you like who he wants to give his inheritance to, then that is fine by you. How hypocritical. Your proposed system is also highly exploitable.

""I consider liberals to always be self-parodying."

"I know you are but what am I"? Oh, leon."

Baseless insults are met with meaningless responses.

"It can get this through a variety of sources including tariffs, which both Sanders and Trump are currently advocating for."
Tariffs hinder economic growth and internation trade. It's almost as bad as the gold standard.

Also, are you saying that if they choose to give their money to charities that should be taxed to the same degree as the inheritor? This is a different beast.

Aside from building a wall between the USA and Mexico what actually are Trump's policies?

"Tariffs hinder economic growth and internation trade. It's almost as bad as the gold standard."

It may hinder international trade, but I don't support absolute free trade in the international realm. Nations must do what is in their best interests, and it certainly isn't in America's best interests. Tariffs also don't hinder economic growth. Instead, it fosters domestic prosperity. I also happen to support the gold standard. Taking America off of it was tantamount to government sponsored counterfeiting.

"Also, are you saying that if they choose to give their money to charities that should be taxed to the same degree as the inheritor? This is a different beast."

I believe that neither should be taxed.

"Aside from building a wall between the USA and Mexico what actually are Trump's policies?"

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Free trade isn't in America's best interest? We're the trade leaders of the world? What Rick do you live under?

International trade encourages economic growth.

Also, why in fuck do you support the gold standard? Being on it stabilized the currency, but it also hindered wealth and the expansion and creation of wealth, the tantamounts of capitalism and...ECONOMIC GROWTH. It's not counterfeit when this is literally how the system was supposed to operate.

You're not a mercantilist are you? Please, by God, don't tell me you're a mercantilist.

"Free trade isn't in America's best interest? We're the trade leaders of the world? What Rick do you live under?

International trade encourages economic growth."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/fredgraph-3.png

"Also, why in fuck do you support the gold standard? Being on it stabilized the currency, but it also hindered wealth and the expansion and creation of wealth, the tantamounts of capitalism and...ECONOMIC GROWTH. It's not counterfeit when this is literally how the system was supposed to operate."

It's fraud any way you look at it. Government infinitely printing money devalues existing money and thus the labor that was put to earn that money.

"You're not a mercantilist are you? Please, by God, don't tell me you're a mercantilist."

A nation should always act in its own self-interest so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other nations.

Your privilege is showing.

Almost unnerving that I'm a better capitalist than leon, who is economically further to my right.

"Your privilege is showing."

Oh my, I am so ashamed of being privileged. [sarcasm]

"Almost unnerving that I'm a better capitalist than leon, who is economically further to my right."

No, you're a better socialist. Huh, an oxymoron.

I'm not a socialist. I'm a fan of private ownership and privatization of industry. I'm definitively a capitalist. You're not. You're a mercantilist. Or a feudalist. Or whatever the hell you are. Someone in favor of an obsolete system.

If you are indeed a fan of capitalism as you say you are, then you wouldn't be supporting Bernie, who wants a minimum wage of $15, which is highly uncapitalistic. Mercantilism is not an obsolete concept. It is just no longer called by that name due to unpleasant historical connections. It's also a system that, as I mentioned before, is favored by Bernie Sanders. I don't know where you got that I'm a feudalist.