Bernie Sanders Made More Than $1 Million In 2016

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Jopseph Jankowski via,

What Bernie Sanders proved to the world in 2016 is that socialism is a fairly popular idea in the United States, a country that was founded and built on the back of free market principles.

Sanders’ socialistic rhetoric struck a chord with millennials who are very open to the idea of mass wealth redistribution and higher taxes. Surveys from last year show that up to 43 percent of Americans under 30 had a favorable view of socialism.

Well, it turns out that Bernie, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, is actually quite the capitalist.

According to his latest U.S. Senate financial disclosure, Sanders made a killing in 2016 from royalties on his book “Our Revolution” and his forthcoming “Bernie Sanders’ Guide to Political Revolution.”

John Walters of Seven Days breaks it down (emphasis mine):

Sanders received a $795,000 advance for his best-selling book, “Our Revolution.” He got another $63,750 for his forthcoming “Bernie Sanders’ Guide to Political Revolution,” a book aimed at young readers co-authored with Kate Waters. And he took in $6,735 in royalties for his 1997 memoir “Outsider in the House.”


That’s more than $865,000 for peddling his working-class ideas. Not bad.


Then there’s the $2,521 Sanders earned last year in royalties for his 1987 spoken-word folk album, “We Shall Overcome.”


Senate rules do not require members to report their government salaries on their annual disclosures, but all rank-and-file members earn $174,000 a year. That, combined with the more than $878,000 Sanders reported in his filing, puts the democratic socialist’s 2016 payday at roughly $1,052,000.

So, while spending months speaking about a rigged economy where the 1% of earners are the only beneficiaries of the governmental system, it turns out that Bernie himself was making 1%’er level income.

According to statistical data from the Internal Revenue Services, the top 1% had an adjusted gross income of $465,626 or higher for the 2014 tax year.

If ever enacted, the tax plan Sanders ran his 2016 presidential campaign on would have forced the Senator to surrender over 45% of his income in taxes.

With his recent purchase of $575,000 lakefront home in North Hero, Vermont, and possession of two six-figure mortgages which were revealed in his financial disclosure, it is clear that Sanders is a big fan of keeping and using the fruits of his labor.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Bill of Rights's picture

No worries tho he's for the Little guy, the Hipster Liberal begging for change told me so.

Juggernaut x2's picture

Socialism is where the common man benefits- crony capitalism is where worthless pieces of shit like this hebe, Sanders, get rewarded for being controlled opposition to Hillary with freshly printed jewbux 

J S Bach's picture

It has always been a given that Communists are self-annointed elitists for whom their own philosophy doesn't apply to them.  There are no exceptions.  Yet, their foolish followers will ignore this and continue on into their utopian nightmare.

Manthong's picture


Socialism hab bean berry good to me.


jcaz's picture

Is that all?  Where is the money he got from Hillary that paid for his new beach house?

Cheka_Mate's picture

Guy becomes famous for campaigning on "Take from the 'rich' to give to the poor."

Becomes a "Rich 1%er" in the process, keeps his money, does not give to the poor.

A True Socialist Success Story!!!

SlowBro's picture

I'm sorry mister Sanders, I can't hear you over the sound of your 600 thousand dollar lake house.

Art Van_Delay's picture

Next elections we need to send him fucking packing.

Damn joo.

And his crazy antifa fans are trying to pass the blame for the latest troubles.

Portland Killer is Actually a Bernie Sanders Supporter

John Law Lives's picture

***   SPAM ALERT   ***

Do not click on  Art Van_Delay's link.  It is SPAM.

It is hard to get many upvotes for your stupid posts after ZH deleted your other ids, Art Van_Delay.

Art Van_Delay's picture

Thanks to your butthurt meltdown people visit more.

I should send you a cookie but I let you have cake instead.

Haven't you learn that the average alt-righters don't like to be told what to do/not do?


PrayingMantis's picture

... with all that dough, socialist Bernie could re-visit his honeymoon playground in Russia >>> ...


John Law Lives's picture


Methinks The Daily Westerner is garbage.

Methinks you are a moron.

JRobby's picture
Bernie Sanders Made More Than $60 Million In 2016

Fixed it

Von Berger's picture

Bernie Bernie Bernie..... how altruistic opening you beach house to all those Syrian refugees.

Mtnrunnr's picture

gaslight gaslight gaslight. you elected a Neo-con, jewish, Shill to the white house, who owns many milti-million dollar estates and Bernie earns $1million in a year (probably less than Trump's properties earn in a day) and you fly off the handle. Bomb Syria, because of teh bebeies. install goldman's sacks board into the white house. deny the climate and install the energy industry into the DOE (you're right, climate change is a lie sold to you so that you can become energy independant) Fuck you. well actually Trump is fucking you, so good luck with that. Watch as Trump fails to deliver on any of his promises that matter, and delivers on the ones that everyone (including you) disagree with.

Mtnrunnr's picture

but you can hear Donald Trump from behind his GOLDEN PLATED TRUMP BUILDINGS. Aren't you guys always upset about cognitave dissonance, or are you screaming so loud you can't see your own god damn problems?

booboo's picture

The Don doesn't pretend to be a socialist, he pretends to be a billionaire

Smufty's picture

How many millionaires are out there supporting a tax increase for the good of those less well-off? Lay off Bernie. Socialism does not mean you cannot try to make money, idiots. Throw a little more venom at the Corporatists-Bankers out there who want to steal your money AND pay no taxes.

Oldwood's picture

This is what all these books are about. The perfect way to launder money. Only thing better is getting paid for canned speeches. All payola.

Endgame Napoleon's picture

If Bernie meant it, he'd be using the $800k to renovate a lake house for the homeless, but not really. Bernie's main theme is more free stuff for single moms with a little thrown in for the college kids, like the Bernie babes. Still, in my youth, this would have been disillusioning information. Bernie has been around awhile. Many of us did not just discover him, but did, in some ridiculous cases, just discover how fake socialism is.

peippe's picture

yeah, his 'reward' from hilary is he won't get shot with an antique revolver.

best gift of all, gift of life.  : )

J S Bach's picture

Do you think old Bern will live up to his party's motto: "From each according to their means - to each according to their needs?"  I think he should.  He should spread his wealth amongst all of his supporters - according to their "needs", of course.  Ha!  What a non-workable bullshit ideology.

Vatican_cameo's picture


$575,000 on a Lakeside house in VT was a mistake.  He could have really made out spending $575,000 on a place in Venezuela.  Hell, he could have purchased half the country for that much cash.  Living like a King amidst the perfect Environment of Socialism.  His loss (ours too).

2_legs_bahhhhhd's picture

He will tell you he paid a shit load in taxes that benefit society, what he won't tell you is that his salary was paid with tax dOllars.

These fucking commies only know one thing....more from you, less from me.

Endgame Napoleon's picture

Sigh, that quote was my screen saver long before it was cool. But, at the time, I was selling a custom luxury item to yuppies like there was no tomorrow. I cannot claim to have lived that phrase, either, although I made very little for all those sales. It was fun though. It is hard to live up to your beliefs. I was against the Made-in-China, wage-slave-made products then and even a decade before, but I still had to sell products made there in order to compete with big-box stores as much as I could.

armageddon addahere's picture

But their own philosophy does apply to them. Guys like Sanders want to take over everybody else's property and run it as they see fit. Naturally this includes them getting the best of it. Sanders being highly paid for his efforts, exercising power without responsibility, owning numerous houses, and benefitting from other peoples' work is completely in line with 'progressive' principles.

The mistake the suckers make is believing the leaders will steal for them, and not steal from them.

Charles Nelson Reilly's picture

"Socialism is where the common man benefits"

Go take a long weekend trip in Venezuela and report back on how the common man is benefiting there. 

GoinFawr's picture

Yeah, and whatever you do, don't look at how 'socialism' is panning out in Norway.

sheesh. whadda buncha Dingle-berry picker/eaters



AGuy's picture

"Yeah, and whatever you do, don't look at how 'socialism' is panning out in Norway."

Norway is very capitalistic. Norway's gov't is funded by Oil Exports. No different than KSA, Kuwait, etc. I doubt Norway would be a Socialist Utopia without its Oil (Capitalism) Exports driving their economy.

GoinFawr's picture

They have a 'mixed economy', and fuck off with the 'utopia' bullshit, or show me where I make that claim.

Chris88's picture

Like the Saudis, they ahve benefitted from sitting on one of the best pieces of real estate on earth.  Like the Saudis, their entire slew of promises is predicated on this continuing forever with little in terms of meaningful diversification of income.  The "oops" moment will be funny with both of those.

GoinFawr's picture

Oh yeeah:




Decades of kicking your piker ass. LOTS of places have been " sitting on one of the best pieces of real estate on earth", too bad that, unlike Norway, most of them sold it off for pennies on the dollar to a handful of plutocrats whose dick you suck, hey? Ask Canada or the UK today if something like Statoil would have been a good idea or not... 

Oh yeah, "like the Saudis", pffft; give me a fucking break.

As if Norway=SA in any other way than having oil. Even if Statoil went tits up today because the world was suddenly powered by Unicorn farts Norges could still pay the bills for the next 30 years or so; ie be in a better fiscal situation than, well, pretty much anywhere

Go on pull the other one, Chrisssy the Neoliberal schill.

Chris88's picture

The link as well as your incoherent rambling (is English your 5th language) have nothing to do with what's being said.  Furthermore, you did not address 1) downside risk of commodity prices and risk management with what is a fixed payment system 2) ability of said system to tolerate the stress 3) how much of the promises are expected to be funded through oil and.. 4) the pricing, volatility, and demographic assumptions of #3.  Again, I don't fault you, because you have never in your life looked at anything from an analytical point of view.  Your intellectual prowess is comprised solely of Googling things for the sake of goal seeking an emotional argument.  

GoinFawr's picture

1) show me an investment without risk, please

2) look at my supposedly irrelevant link again Chrissy, how'd it do in the OIL crash of 08-09? 

3)'Promises' mean a whole lot more when the money is already in the bank

4) see 1)

Chris88's picture

Zero granularity, zero specificity with regards to the company you are claiming you have the ability to evaluate (LOL), no actual concrete numbers and assumptions.  Keep making an ass of yourself, really, no way the entire thread is laughing at you.

GoinFawr's picture

And yet you're the one who can't answer the relevant questions!

Chris88's picture

You didn't actually ask anything, you were too busy Googling stuff to regurgitate and then claim you're qualified to speak about.  

GoinFawr's picture

Riiight, so Norge's SWF crashed with the price of oil then? You know, the volatile commodity you inferred it to be entirely reliant on, in no uncertain terms...


Chris88's picture

I asked what the implications of stressed scenarios were on the funding assumptions for transfer payments, not the price of an equity in a company that produces oil, which is quite frankly irrelevant to the former.  Not suprirsed that you cannot understand what the difference is, or why the difference is material.  Keep on digging...

GoinFawr's picture

I guess you're right, the Norge SWF is, and always has been, getting fucked, like all, inherently 'uber-inefficient' SOE's (/sarc)


Or it will, if the ilk you cowtow to ever get a hold of it; which should happen any minute, right? so maybe you should start holding your breath now?

Chris88's picture

Making things up...again.  I discussed how terribly positioned it was from a risk management perspective from what will eventually go away.  Additionally - "that can't happen here" is right up there with "this time it's different" in absolute most idiotic things a human being could say.  I also do not comprehend why you are isolating the issue (to triviilize it maybe) to the sovereign wealth fund, when really what is at issue is the potential or lack thereof to sustainably fulfill financial obligations.  In essence you're looking at the balance sheet without looking at major cash flow ramifications (for example the government using it as a cash register when the single industry upon which most revenues are based dries up or another adverse event happens).  They'll satisfy current obligations at the expense of potential future earnings from having remained invested, which as you can see is a vicious catch 22. BTW, retard, you should check the SWF holdings and see how much is invested like almost any other fund, subject to the volatility of running a long only fund in financial assets around the world.  

francis_the_wonder_hamster's picture

"Even if Statoil went tits up today because the world was suddenly powered by Unicorn farts Norges could still pay the bills for the next 30 years or so"

Although I very much enjoy the literary imagery of a world powered by "unicorn farts", I'm compelled to point out that your rebuttal admits that they'd run out of money in "the next 30 years or so".  You happen to be correct, but do you really think that's an ethical stance to take?  Let's give ourselves benefits now and let our children and grandchildren deal with the debt?

Generational theft anyone?

Probably the best/easiest/funniest rebuttal to this argument was made by PJ O'Rourke in Eat The Rich.

GoinFawr's picture

Hey, 'francis', did you miss the "if" part? Or how about the, 'that puts them in a better fiscal position than anyone even 30 years from now' part?

Because to me it looks like you missed both.

francis_the_wonder_hamster's picture

Didn't miss the "if" part, because they WILL run out of oil, and probably sooner than 30 years (but let's not digress into a Peak Oil discussion).

Also didn't miss the "better fiscal position" part, because I don't have a ton of time today to go into the math behind compound interest on debt.  But for the sake of discussion, could you please explain to me why a nation which is in a "better fiscal position than anyone" has this issue:

The nations who will be in the best fiscal position in the next 30 years are those without debt or those with the biggest militaries to fend off the debt collectors.

GoinFawr's picture

Well you certainly missed this, From YOUR link:

"Source: NOTE The Norwegian central government is in a net asset position, i.e. the government’s total financial assets exceed the total debt."

Until the nation goes into debt NOrges retain their national sovereignty

Naturally, in such a mixed economy,  private individuals are still free to enslave themselves with debt if they so choose.

"The nations who will be in the best fiscal position in the next 30 years are those without debt or those with the biggest militaries to fend off the debt collectors."

I agree, and as I have tried to point out to you, Norway has the former in spades.

francis_the_wonder_hamster's picture

The problem isn't with "current" financial assets, it's with the future liabilities that they have already incurred in the form of social promises.  When the US first implemented Social Security and Medicare, the balance sheet was pristeen, but those social promises tend to snowball exponentially and they NEVER go down, while assets are subject to the ebbs and flows of market fluctuations.

This is one of the major reasons that the US and other countries face such a dire fiscal outlook.  The politicians look at snapshots like "current net asset position" and think they can spend that surplus on future promises.  The results are inevitable.

A household has X in income which it expects to grow at 5%.  It takes on as much liabilities (home, car, etc..) as that income can support.  Even if they can borrow at that same 5%, they are underwater the second that income has a blip or there is an unexpected expense.  Current assets may cover some of that, but the tendency of most individual households (and ALL countries) is to spend that asset surplus in the belief that the income will never have that blip.  All of this assumes that the liabilities don't grow, but they always do, especially in the case of social promises.

It's an inevitable result, even if it does take a generation or two, and it's downright criminal generational theft IMHO.

GatorMcClusky's picture

"As if Norway=SA in any other way than having oil"

In 30 years both countries will be pumped dry and will be overflowing with Moozlums.

GoinFawr's picture

Crow all you like then

in thirty years or so