Really?
Our nation's most elite journalists at press organs that specialize in the economy and finance are unable to comprehend what Bernie Sanders is saying about tax rates?
Really?!?!?
First off we have John Harwood, formerly of The Wall Street Journal, currently with CNBC, showing he either does not understand tax law or is just a friggin' idiot. First he lets the "Hitler" reference into the discussion, because, well, it's "out there". Then he questions taxing the wealthy at 90% Marginal tax rates, but implies it's 90% of everything you made:
BERNIE SANDERS: That a disgusting remark. I'm sorry to have to tell them, they live in the United States, they benefit from the United States, we have kids who are hungry in this country. We have people who are working two, three, four jobs, who can't send their kids to college. You know what? Sorry, you're all going to have to pay your fair share of taxes. If my memory is correct, when radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.
JOHN HARWOOD: When you think about 90 percent, you don't think that's obviously too high?
SANDERS: No. That's not 90 percent of your income, you know? That's the marginal. I'm sure you have some really right-wing nut types, but I'm not sure that every very wealthy person feels that it's the worst thing in the world for them to pay more in taxes, to be honest with you. I think you've got a lot of millionaires saying, "You know what? I've made a whole lot of money. I don't want to see kids go hungry in America. Yeah, I'll pay my fair share."
Harwood asked the question in a fallacious way that misinterprets Bernie's idea and how taxes work. You
only hit the 90% rate of taxation after X number of dollars earned, and this would most likely be in the multiple millions.
Harwood gets a second shot at the topic with his New York Times post that misleads in the same way.
He doesn’t flinch over returning to the 90 percent personal income tax rates of the 1950s for top earners. And if reducing income inequality reduces economic growth, he says, that’s fine. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants,” he said, “when children are hungry in this country.”
I'm sure there are other examples. Harwood has plenty of outlets on which to make the issue clear. Rather than that, he muddies the water and sounds alarms over a 90% tax rate, similar to that of the
Dwight Eisenhower presidency. A
shameful era of American history time that Republicans call the "good old days".
And a time when tax rates were understood by the financial and political press of the nation's most elite journalistic outlets.