Who can be more socialist than the other?  Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) now has proposed

an annual wealth tax topping out at 8% for the richest Americans, offering the farthest-reaching Democratic plan to pay for expanded government programs and break up concentrated fortunes.

That’s much more than fellow Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA) now paltry 2% wealth tax.

That’s on top of the race to give the most free stuff to the most people: who’s got the more extensive Housing-for-All plan, the broader Medicare-for-All plan, the more lucrative student debt forgiveness plan, Sanders’ plan to forgive all medical debt and parent debt taken in support of students (look for Warren to come up with plans for those soon), and on and on and on.

This sort of thing can only be done through government control or outright ownership of all property, and that’s at the core of socialism.

One-upping? No, it’s who can be the more socialist.

Even Stephen Colbert wants to know: under Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA) payment scheme for her Medicare-for-All scheme, will middle class Americans’ taxes go up? He put the question to her in so many words:

You keep being asked in the debates how are you going to pay for it, are you going to be raising the middle-class taxes…. How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to be raising the middle-class taxes?

Warren’s answer:

So, here’s how we’re going to do this. Costs are going to go up for the wealthiest Americans, for big corporations…. and hard-working middle-class families are going to see their costs going down.

Colbert tried again:

But will their taxes go up?

Warren evaded again:

Health care is a basic human right. We fight for basic human rights, and that’s Medicare-for-all.

The plain and simple meaning of Warren’s evasive answers is yes, middle class taxes will go up as part of her payment scheme. Their taxes will go up a lot.

…not to live in New York.  Aside from there being no place for folks who disagree with the Progressive-Democrats in charge, there’s this travesty.

A New Jersey resident—resident in every sense of the term—owns a vacation home in New York where he spends a few days each year…vacationing.

A state administrative law judge ruled last month that [the resident] owed $527,000 in back New York state income tax because of his upstate home. With interest and penalties, that is more than twice the $290,000 he paid for the house in 2011.

Why?  Because he spent those few days in that home which he owned, and under New York tax law that makes all of his income, regardless of where it actually was earned, subject to New York income tax.

I used to be a resident of Illinois, even as I was stationed—living—variously in Alaska and Florida.  I maintained Illinois residency because I was a supporter of then-Senator Chuck Percy.  My income was earned outside Illinois, and the State taxed none of it.  Had I had income earned in Illinois, the State would have taxed only that part of my total income, not the totality of it.

But New York doesn’t have that sense of integrity.  Pay up, sucka.  Or get outta here.

Echoing Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s claim that there’s plenty of money, it’s just in the wrong hands, more Progressive-Democrat Presidential candidates are moving toward taxing the mere existence of that money.

For the richest Americans, Democrats want to shift toward taxing their wealth….

After all,

At the end of 2017, US households had $3.8 trillion in unrealized gains in stocks and investment funds, plus more in real estate, private businesses, and artwork[.]

Gimme that money, say the Progressive-Democrats. You didn’t earn that. And besides, whether you did or not is irrelevant. We have better uses because just shut up.

Senator Ron Wyden (D, OR) has given the game away.

The whole tax system is stacked in favor of the tax-avoidance crowd[.]

Because it’s government’s money, not private money.  Never mind that were tax rates not so usuriously high, no one would have to work hard to pay the minimum the law requires (honest efforts that guys like Wyden, in wide-eyed innocence, call “tax avoidance”).

Aside: the article opens with this:

The income tax is the Swiss Army Knife of the US tax system, an all-purpose policy tool for raising revenue, rewarding and punishing activities, and redistributing money between rich and poor.

Which is what I’ve been saying, along with many others, all along. Our tax code is for social engineering not so much for raising revenue for Constitutional purposes.  And that’s a fatal flaw.

Second aside: Progressive-Democrats ignore how much more taxes the Evil Rich pay than the rest of us, as illustrated by this graph from the same article. It’s never going to be enough because you’re still talking—shut up, I said.