Bernie Sanders Made More Than $1 Million In 2016

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.


Mtnrunnr Von Berger Mon, 06/05/2017 - 17:22 Permalink

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.

In reply to by Von Berger

Smufty booboo Mon, 06/05/2017 - 21:09 Permalink

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.

In reply to by booboo

Endgame Napoleon jcaz Mon, 06/05/2017 - 20:46 Permalink

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.

In reply to by jcaz

J S Bach Manthong Mon, 06/05/2017 - 16:07 Permalink

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.

In reply to by Manthong

Endgame Napoleon J S Bach Mon, 06/05/2017 - 20:52 Permalink

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.

In reply to by J S Bach

armageddon addahere J S Bach Mon, 06/05/2017 - 16:59 Permalink

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.

In reply to by J S Bach

AGuy GoinFawr Mon, 06/05/2017 - 16:14 Permalink

"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.

In reply to by GoinFawr

Chris88 AGuy Mon, 06/05/2017 - 16:20 Permalink

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.

In reply to by AGuy

GoinFawr Chris88 Mon, 06/05/2017 - 16:42 Permalink

Oh yeeah:…"Fugacious!""Fleeting!""Transitory!"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 anywhereGo on pull the other one, Chrisssy the Neoliberal schill.

In reply to by Chris88

Chris88 GoinFawr Mon, 06/05/2017 - 16:49 Permalink

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.  

In reply to by GoinFawr

Chris88 GoinFawr Mon, 06/05/2017 - 18:08 Permalink

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...

In reply to by GoinFawr

Chris88 GoinFawr Mon, 06/05/2017 - 19:33 Permalink

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.  

In reply to by GoinFawr

francis_the_wo… GoinFawr Mon, 06/05/2017 - 17:05 Permalink

"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.

In reply to by GoinFawr

francis_the_wo… GoinFawr Mon, 06/05/2017 - 17:22 Permalink

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: 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.

In reply to by GoinFawr

GoinFawr francis_the_wo… Mon, 06/05/2017 - 23:21 Permalink

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 sovereigntyNaturally, 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.

In reply to by francis_the_wo…

francis_the_wo… GoinFawr Tue, 06/06/2017 - 17:55 Permalink

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.

In reply to by GoinFawr