Posted on 04/14/2016 8:05:18 AM PDT by rktman
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders rails against the “billionaire class” and has called income inequality “the greatest moral issue of our time,” but the senator from Vermont is “not exactly a man of modest means,” according to an article written by Kerri Anne Renzulli for the TIME magazine website.
However, “nothing about Bernie’s net worth devalues his progressive beliefs,” stated Peter Daou, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton who responded on the Blue Nation Review website to reports that Sanders and his wife, Jane, could retire with an “effective retirement nest egg” valued at “nearly $2 million.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
What does that mean? It means that the author is probably cooking the numbers to try to make his point.
As an example, suppose you get a pension of $50,000. That implies you have an “effective retirement nest egg” of one million dollars. That's because someone without a pension would need one million dollars earning 5% annual interest to match your pension.
Notice that you aren't actually a millionaire.
I point this out not to defend Sanders. I just dislike authors who try to mislead.
The socialist bum and his failure educator spouse should be giving it to the less-fortunate and the discriminated-upon. Hypocrites!
I don't think it is. I think the author is manipulating the data. Please see my post #21.
Of course.. like a good socialist/Marxist, he has his so everyone else can go suck it.
Most of us are average earners who can keep the same lifestyle at 70% or even 60% of that figure.
For starters, most homes are paid off or close to paid off by retirement if you purchased modestly. That's 35% right there, on average. The cost of commuting to and from work eats another 12% or so of most household budgets. At least half of that goes away even if you catch an occasional early bird special at Eat'n'Park or visit the family sawbones, that's 6%.
Social security "contributions" plus taxes levied against those contributions, takes another 10% or so . . . and is replaced by social security payments which are 50% tax exempt for most of us.
So you are down to (100% -(35% + 6% + 5%)) or 54% with those three items alone. And I haven't even got to the fact that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania taxes retirement earnings at a much more reasonable rate than wages and salaries.
The scary thing is not the theoretical finances as it is the uncertainty the idiot voters will elect idiot politicians who will screw-up business, reduce your returns and bankrupt social security faster than ever.
I've also heard that nearly half (47%) of retirees live on social security alone.
Using that logic, I suppose one could say the same about any civil servant who retires as a GS-12+. Social Security payments fall under the same discussion.
Mark
You probably don’t spend a lot of your income on nose candy or booze either. I was never more than a social drinker until BO was sworn in, when I took the pledge to quit completely. It was amazing just how much extra cash breaking just that single habit generated.
“learning” to? ha!
Maybe he isn’t as bright as some of the other bottom feeders in d.c.
Billionaire-Bashing Bernie Sanders Is a Millionaire With Three Homes-—where’s occupy bullstreet?
No.
Really?
You notice these communists never live the way they’re going to require the rest of us to live.
Let’s see. 2% above inflation on $2M is $40,000 a year. That’s hardly rolling in the green stuff. And, tell me where you can get a safe return of 2% above inflation these days. Oh, I forgot. We haven’t had any real inflation in years [What’s this $5 / lb hamburger?]
Not 300 billion, but plenty nonetheless. Probably more like $100 to 300 million, if you count the slush foundation.
She ran the college into the hole with her AMAZING
management “skills”; then she called it quits with an
AMAZING “severance paycheck”. It’s interesting. (Bernie
was a hippie lounge lizard. Don’t know what he did after
forty; nothin’ strenuous I’d wager.)
What communist leader isn’t a total hypocrite?
Note in each revolution there were inspired leaders; i.e. Washington, Lenin, Robespierre Danton etc. all surrounded by capable theoreticians and practicing men of affairs. Sure they made mistakes but they over threw the rot!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.