
Bernie Sanders Aims New Tax Hike at Executive Retirement Plans - jelliclesfarm
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-aims-new-tax-hike-at-executive-retirement-plans-11582815616
======
stuntkite
I'm pretty privileged and more than happy to pay a reasonable tax on my
fortune if people richer than me who can afford to assemble legal tax shelters
can be wrangled in to pay their share too. Also, tax churches.

If we could incentivize startup structures that are less focused on pump and
dump #growthhax and more on creation of organizations that produce value for
the communities they are in and the people who trade their lives and labor for
a crumbling fig leaf of security and happiness. That shit would be hot.

VC money is crack money. The squandered wealth propped up by rich opportunists
on the backs of creative efforts of hard working people hedged so said rich
people can fail upwards while worker lives are ruined for a taste of a
Zuckerberg dream is gross. Without dinging the frequent big winners in this
space via taxes there isn't really a mechanism to encourage self regulation.

~~~
stevenicr
That churches thing - I find they have other benefits too.

Is there a few clicks create a church have all the legal and what-have-you
filed and such like stripe does with del corps?

Might be time to setup one of these things.

~~~
stuntkite
It does appear that a lot of people believe religiously that they shouldn't
pay taxes. We should all start churches. Maybe get a lawyer or three involved
and make enough churches flagrantly abusing the law that the supreme court has
to hear a case. The Church of Satan kind of does stuff like that.

They do have other benefits but they very state to state. Like that guy that
legalized his ayahuasca church in Kentucky[0] because they have a law that
says you can do whatever drugs you want if it's a religious ceremony. It's
stupid that you need a church for that, but also pretty rad that he can do it
there. It appears to be helping a lot of people.

It appears that there are services for filing the needed documents.
StartChurch.com pops up with a quick google. It looks nice.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-88xpl-5ro0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-88xpl-5ro0)

~~~
stevenicr
That startchurch looks like they do do it! thanks for that.

I have been kicking the idea around of starting a few 'churches' just have an
open 'third place' \- I don't mind whatever religions stuff people choose to
follow - I'd perhaps want to open a 'coag - church of any gods' and let people
choose their own flavors.

To me a 'church space' should/could be all inclusive - even athiest / satanic
whatever - life's a journey, things change, no judge all that.. a dojo is just
a building where people train.

I like the tax break options, and let sub-groups be pro-active in whatever
their chosen things are.

I read a story this week saying some atheist groups are actively trying to
stop some religious texts in all government building in a certain state? I
found another atheist group doing stuff for homeless that does not push
religions.. I would encourage those kinds of things I think.

you mention the ayahuasca - I knew some native Indian folks some time ago that
got peyote twice a year legally for their ceremonies, and have read Oregon has
taken something like that to their state supreme court?

There are sometimes counseling services offered by these places where the
people are not licensed/dr degreed right? So affordable someone to talk to
could be offered.

It is interesting the exemptions that are made in the name of the invisible
man in the sky as george carlin put it.

I found that our city (maybe state?) has exemptions for codes with churches -
so you can't build a tiny home community with r10 zoning here, but if you have
a church there are not restrictions on buildings.

As to where I don't particularly care for some of the extra tall buildings in
the area, perhaps it's time to take advantage of their exemptions rather than
just be miffed that they are getting them.

/randomthoughts

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I was part of such a church. It’s not active anymore.

[http://www.churchofvirus.org/](http://www.churchofvirus.org/)

It was good. Then it was bad. It got worse. Then it died a sad death.

I am pretty sure some of it’s members are probably right here on HN. Different
time and another lifetime for me.

~~~
stevenicr
I'd love to hear a synopsis of that situation! I appreciate this bit as well.
Makes me think something like this could quickly outgrow itself, and rather
than trying to keep so many voices under one growing roof, perhaps it may be
best to split in half and split again to keep things manageable and cordial
and not have things get worse than bad. But still do the things it was set out
to do - provide an open third place for people who may not have such and take
advantage of some discounts along the way.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
It is difficult to create a synopsis for this because it’s a lot of
things..little little things that mushroomed and eventually caused the group
to implode. There are other things that happened and I can’t talk about it.

But I will say this...the biggest cleft occurred after 9/11\. It was a very
bad time for the group to be cohesive. Looking back, it’s rather remarkable. I
actually want to write about it some day because it was a pressurized
emotional highly volatile environment where seemingly like minded people
couldn’t stand each other’s POV anymore.

The group was around for a decade plus after that..but weaker. The ‘virus’
came from how thoughts are like virii and can infect people. And every member
of the congregation can be a vector for rational thought. We’d spend hours
discussing (remember BBS and Dalnet/IRC?) how religion was a virus and only
rational atheistic thought could vaccinate people against the virus of god.
Darwin was our prophet. Evolution explained life. We celebrated his birthday.
Man..those were some good times.

Of course, even then no one got along..but we were all still arguing with ‘one
of us’. But 911 changed _everything_.

That’s when it dawned upon many of us..the most dangerous virus is not
religion..but politics. What bound us was not as strong as what divides us.

It was just sad after that. Slow agonizing ugly death of something that could
have been beautiful.

I was very young then..in the two plus decades since, I have changed too. I
stopped calling myself atheist and became agnostic for a while. Then I called
myself ignostic and until recently didn’t care. As I get older, I feel I am
ready to explore and am willing to test if faith is more nuanced than
‘organised religion’.

I don’t know. I guess we are always looking for answers. And when we are not,
we invent questions to look for answers.

To your point, I disagree..congregations need to be large. We were trying to
replicate how a virus works by spreading rational thoughts memes and the more
people we infected with our thought memes, the more successful we were going
to be in promoting the virian ideal and virtue of pure rational thought.

------
pyuser583
What’s fascinating about Bernie is how familiar he is.

A 1960s radical who went to a top level university (UofC), has never belonged
to a union, has worked in government or non profit sector all his life, etc.

Never worked for consulting or finance or academia.

There sorts of folks used to be much more common in politics. Now they’re
mostly retired.

It’s not bad per se. But not really new. In fact, very very old.

I guess Bernie is the last roar of the 1960s generation.

Very telling that his generation is rejecting him in the polls. 1960s radicals
were always divisive an unpopular in mainstream America.

The left hasn’t done a very good job figuring out what it’s next step should
be, so taking a step back might be a good idea.

~~~
thundergolfer
Really confused by your comment to be honest. Maybe it’s an age gap thing?
because Bernie is a deeply unfamiliar political animal to people who are less
than 40.

Also the left knows exactly what it’s need step should be. There’s obvious
changes to be made in the areas of healthcare, wealth inequality, and
environment.

In what sense has “the left” not got a clear next step?

~~~
lasagnaphil
Maybe the commenter failed to distinguish between “left” and “liberal”,
resulting in a confusion. Right now it’s the liberals who doesn’t have a clear
next step, failing to acknowledge that they are part of the problem for the
US’s staggering wealth inequality (which by the way, is the fundamental reason
why Trump won), and now just trying to present a more “milder” version of
Bernie’s policies to pander to voters.

~~~
pyuser583
I was referring to the Democratic Party, which is the more left leaning of the
two main American political parties. And additional any left of center
activists affiliated with it.

Yes, one can refer to liberalism in an economic and philosophical sense which
is very different.

Yet, few Republicans, including very libertarian leaning ones, would ever
identify as liberal.

Nobody would call Barry Goldwater a liberal, even though he very much fit the
definition.

~~~
Fjolsvith
> Nobody would call Barry Goldwater a liberal, even though he very much fit
> the definition.

Only in the latter years of his career. [1]

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater)

~~~
pyuser583
He never identified as a liberal, even in later years. He consistently called
himself conservative. He accused the Republican Party of becoming liberal.

------
missedthecue
Looks like this would tax options at vest rather than exercise, essentially
ending employee equity comp in startups.

Interesting how he wants the workers to own the means of production but also
is trying his damndest to disincentivize it.

~~~
mcntsh
It's great that a small group of people are getting rich with stocks at tech
companies, but maybe another socioeconomic group needs some help for a change.

~~~
missedthecue
It does not therefore follow that this rule is the key to making that happen.

~~~
mcntsh
Which rule? Owning the means of production (via employee stock ownership
programs)? That's not a part of Bernie's campaign at all.

~~~
missedthecue
The rule this whole thread is about...

If he is correct in claiming that one group is being left behind, passing
legislation designed to tie the hands behind the back of another group is not
going to help the poorer group. His entire worldview revolves around the
flawed misconception that the economy is zero-sum. That of course is a bunch
of nonsense. Peter the software developer getting 0.25% equity stake in a
startup does not hurt or hinder Joseph the line cook, and preventing Peter
from getting that stake will not make Joseph better off.

------
peripitea
Is there any indication this would apply to all ISO/NSOs? Can't read the WSJ
article (no subscription), but articles referencing it seem to be saying that
it's targeted at highly-paid executives. Obviously this would be disastrous if
it applied to all stock options. Just trying to get the facts straight before
getting too riled up.

~~~
chovy
as a middle class tech worker i like bernie but he's going to fuck us over the
most.

~~~
ChuckNorris89
Maybe depends to which middle class you're comparing yourself to, the Bay
Area, or the rest of the US.

------
throwGuardian
What's fascinating about Bernie's campaign is the almost identical stance he
has with the Bolsheviks, that Google defines [1] as "...Russian Social
Democratic Party".

So Bernie's P.R. consultants did the brilliant job of retaining _most_ of the
Bolshevik diktat, and switching "Social Democratic" to "Democratic Socialist",
in an apparent attempt at sanitizing brand socialism.

[1]:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=Bolshevik](https://www.google.com/search?q=Bolshevik)

