Bernie Sanders Unveils $7 Trillion Plan To Give Americans Control of AI Industry (apnews.com) 195
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: As artificial intelligence companies reshape the economy and race toward trillion-dollar valuations, Sen. Bernie Sanders is proposing a sweeping transfer of wealth and power from the industry to the American public. The legislation, shown first to The Associated Press, would create a sovereign wealth fund overseen by an independent commission and financed through a one-time 50% tax on the stock of the largest AI companies. Sanders estimates that the tax would create a nearly $7 trillion fund that would generate hundreds of billions of dollars annually in direct payments to Americans and programs such as health care, education and housing.
[...] The 50% tax would apply to AI companies that reach $200 million in annual AI sales. Any new AI company that reaches that benchmark would also be subject to the tax. It would create a sovereign wealth fund -- similar to those used by countries around the world and some U.S. states -- that Sanders estimates would be worth around $7 trillion. Unlike a traditional tax, the proposal would require companies to transfer stock rather than cash, effectively making the American public a major shareholder in the country's largest AI firms.
A seven-person independent commission -- nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate -- would manage the fund and use its voting shares "to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them," the bill summary says. Sanders proposes that a 5% annual dividend from the fund would provide direct payments of more than $1,000 to every American. If companies grow, the gains would be used for public goods such as education, housing and health care. Sanders argues taxpayers would not bear the losses if AI company valuations decline. "We're not going to lose any money, even if there is a bust in the bubble," Sanders said. The commission would be directed to "to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them," according to the summary. "The benefits cannot simply go to the handful of wealthy corporations. They will be shared by the American people," the independent Vermont senator said in an interview Wednesday. "The public has got to have a significant seat at the table to make sure that terrible things do not happen to ordinary people, and that in fact, AI benefits ordinary people, not hurts them," Sanders said.
[...] The 50% tax would apply to AI companies that reach $200 million in annual AI sales. Any new AI company that reaches that benchmark would also be subject to the tax. It would create a sovereign wealth fund -- similar to those used by countries around the world and some U.S. states -- that Sanders estimates would be worth around $7 trillion. Unlike a traditional tax, the proposal would require companies to transfer stock rather than cash, effectively making the American public a major shareholder in the country's largest AI firms.
A seven-person independent commission -- nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate -- would manage the fund and use its voting shares "to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them," the bill summary says. Sanders proposes that a 5% annual dividend from the fund would provide direct payments of more than $1,000 to every American. If companies grow, the gains would be used for public goods such as education, housing and health care. Sanders argues taxpayers would not bear the losses if AI company valuations decline. "We're not going to lose any money, even if there is a bust in the bubble," Sanders said. The commission would be directed to "to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them," according to the summary. "The benefits cannot simply go to the handful of wealthy corporations. They will be shared by the American people," the independent Vermont senator said in an interview Wednesday. "The public has got to have a significant seat at the table to make sure that terrible things do not happen to ordinary people, and that in fact, AI benefits ordinary people, not hurts them," Sanders said.
Thinking Too Small (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thinking Too Small (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a really good question, with probably some answers. Given that AI promises that companies can thrive using AI with less human labor, it seems directly relevant to Bernie's goal as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Thinking Too Small (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to see corporations able to be tried as people. 5 year jail sentence = 5 year government ownership.
Re: (Score:3)
In Japan they can temporarily suspend business operations for corporations found guilty of crimes. Staff must still be paid, but they can't do any work. It's an interesting sanction because it obviously hurts financially, but it also makes it very clear to every other company doing business with them that they did wrong, and gives competitors an opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, another leftist who has no idea how economy works. Here's a hint: the state offers jack shit in terms of protections. If a company goes bust, it's its debtors that foot the bill, not the government.
You mean, like the banks in 2008? They got no government assistance and all went under ... right?
The only thing government does is provide some standardised legal structure, so every contract doesn't need to have 20 additional pages describing liability limits.
Among other things, the government provides patent and copyright protections, which are enormously valuable to corporate profits and have been strengthened over time. Dean Baker [cepr.net], of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, goes on about this frequently. For example, "The Real Abundance Agenda: Weakening Patent and Copyright Monopolies [cepr.net]": "... government-granted patent and copyright monopolies. We easily pay
The bailout record: taxpayer profit (Score:2)
As documented here
https://projects.propublica.or... [propublica.org]
Re: Thinking Too Small (Score:2)
I don't think anyone mentioned capitalism until you did. I don't think this is about capitalism versus socialism. The society we live in has privatised profit and nationalised losses. Poor people pay for the externalities of rich people so that they can stay rich no matter what. That's a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about bailouts. It's not even really about economics. It's about corporatism. No corporation should have more legal power than any citizen. Corporations also
Re: Thinking Too Small (Score:2)
Tie it to GDP and use it to make sure no companies get too big to fail so we don't need to socialize the risk. It'll also assure that there's competition.
I think we're both somewhat sarcastic, but there is a certain beauty to using it as a way to foster competition and reduce the need for bail outs.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations basically don't pay taxes, even if they look like they are.
The CBO produced a report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX" in which it states "A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
And it goes on to say
"Although economists are far
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this can't work for all the reasons listed.
It's also not clear how you would even do something like that for a company like Google, where more than half the voting rights are controlled by the founders. Even if the company acquired every share that anyone puts on the market and gave them to the government, they can't compel individuals to sell their shares, so the government would never achieve a controlling interest.
And trying to do so such a mass acquisition would cause total chaos in the stock ma
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the company acquired every share that anyone puts on the market and gave them to the government, they can't compel individuals to sell their shares, so the government would never achieve a controlling interest.
From the text of the actual bill [senate.gov]: "In any case in which an applicable AI company issues equity interests ...." So the 50% share seems to apply only to new issuance of stock, not stock previously issued or already owned.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the company acquired every share that anyone puts on the market and gave them to the government, they can't compel individuals to sell their shares, so the government would never achieve a controlling interest.
From the text of the actual bill [senate.gov]: "In any case in which an applicable AI company issues equity interests ...." So the 50% share seems to apply only to new issuance of stock, not stock previously issued or already owned.
From section B, existing companies appear to be required to immediately issue new stock such that the government owns half. Basically, at some magic threshold, you have to give half the company away. Seems like a good way to make the stock market crater. Also seems like a good way for AI companies to end up with hundreds of subsidiary companies with their own stock issues to keep the revenue of each individual company under that threshold.
In short, this is nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
AI isn't capable of replacing all workers currently, but Bernie Sanders isn't a computer scientist.
Then when it crashes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's a teeny bit too early for that but ... don't give them (more) ideas!
Re: (Score:3)
That parts gonna happen anyway.
Unless he does something about voter suppression (Score:2, Troll)
It's easy to use propaganda and culture wars to get right wing extremists to 45% in any election. From there you've just got to use 7 hour wait times and illegals voter registration/signature challenges to stop 6% from voting and winner take all politics takes care of the rest.
Lack of fiscal faith (Score:2)
Either:
1. AI is a scam, in which case Bernie is proposing they rob the robbers before the public figures out that they're getting taken. Definitely a heist film.
2. AI is the real deal, in which case Bernie is skimming 50% off the top as part of their deal to let AI have their way with the American economy. Notice he's not promising that he won't came back later to take another 50% haircut.
I'm a little weirded out by the fact that you could also just take an non-voting equity stake in these companies, co
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind, I was reading the Ars Technica version of the article that leaves out the part where they take stock instead of cash under the 50% haircut, and are proposing to pay dividends based on that fund.
Strangely enough, I don't have any objections to this plan.
Re:Lack of fiscal faith (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dilution is preferable to paying cash taxes on unrealized gains - the other socialist/progressive "solution" to people being successful. And, one would hope that negotiations would get things closer to a reasonable percentage from 50%, like the 10% the US government took in Intel.
It aligns the interests of the government with the company - you can't pay dividends on a wealth fund based on equity stakes if you take actions (policy or otherwise) that tank the value of the stock.
If anything, having the govern
Re: (Score:2)
I don't, because there always have to be exceptions. Companies as destructive as AI companies should be treated separately, just like killers are arrested but that doesn't mean that everyone will be thrown in jail, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly does a 50% tax on stock value work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I do have an issue with, is the concentration of power this represents. Wealth, whether in actual dollars, publicly traded stock or private stock, represents an und
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the notion of a Sovereign wealth fund in a place that doesn't have a King just seems absurd. It was dumb and impossible when Trump floated the idea, and it's at least as dumb and impossible today.
independent commission - right (Score:2)
overseen by an independent commission ... A seven-person independent commission -- nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate -- would manage the fund and use its voting shares ...
Until a President replaces them with lackeys who'll do his bidding and SCOTUS (again) says it's okay. So far, pretty much the only independent entity (agency, commission, etc...) the Court hasn't waffled on, especially under this administration, is The Federal Reserve.
Supreme Court Prepares to Dismantle Independent Agencies in Favor of Partisan Chaos [afj.org] (Oct 2025)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. A seven-person commission nominated by the President. What could go wrong there? (The pool of potential nominees would be chosen by Congress, but we've seen how effective Congress is not.)
To get an idea of how this would work, maybe it would be as successful as the Board of Peace, also chosen by the President. Look at all the great things that Potemkin facade has accomplished.
One Time (Score:2)
yeah, sure, totally. One time only. uh huh.
I work public sector. The only thing that scares me more than an unhinged capitalist AI system for profit only is an unhinged AI system built and maintained by government bureaucracy. It will either be totally ineffective, or will murder you and produce documentation in triplicate to be distributed to all departments justifying said murder. Perhaps both?
Some questions (Score:2)
Text of the proposed bill [senate.gov] (an update to the Internal Revenue code).
AI companies would include any companies "Researching, producing, or manufacturing advanced robotics." Would that include the daVinci surgical robots? What about robots for military purposes?
"There are authorized to be appropriated from the Fund for each fiscal year amounts equal to 5 percent of the average market value of the Fund for the fiscal year, reduced by the reasonable costs of administering the Fund .... to provide for direct pa
Re: (Score:2)
Text from the bill on Robotics:
ADVANCED ROBOTICS.—The term ‘advanced robotics’ means an automated or semi-automated mechanical system that uses artificial intelligence to perform tasks with partial or full independence from direct human control for commercial or industrial applications.
Would that include the daVinci surgical robots? What about robots for military purposes?
Probably not to both, since the daVinci's seem to be human controlled. And then military purposes aren't commercial or industrial applications.
And where does that 5% come from? Not from sale of stock: "No distribution or amount appropriated from the Fund under this subsection shall require the sale or other disposition of, the equity interests held in the Fund."
The tax isn't on the company value, but on "aggregate gross receipts". So intention is pretty clearly that the money paid would be from that money coming in.
Bad, bad, no good, awful idea (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine what a good idea would be.
If government is in control, they will cripple or ban its use for anybody who disagrees with the government while developing it into weapons to use against the population.
If monopolists control it, they will enshittify it like they've done to every other piece of tech.
Open source and wide availability would be the best, but the least likely.
There are no good options. It's hard to even figure out which option sucks least.
Bernie's clueless as ever.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Poor guy reminds me of that goofy uncle in the family who means well, but just has no clue how anything *really* works.
Historically, I'm not sure there's ever been a situation where some kind of "sovereign fund" was created to collect taxes, where it didn't wind up getting raided or re-purposed in some manner by politicians down the road?
But even beyond that? There's really zero reason to mandate a huge, 50% tax, on AI companies doing more than X amount of annual revenue. You know what will happen then? It'
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Presumably if your investors don't like the idea of getting diluted by uncle sam, they'll cut off sales once you hit 199M a year.
You'd need to get tangible benefits for letting the government "buy in"... enough that your existing investors and share holding employees would be ok with crossing the 200M cutoff.
Probably a foreign held corporation in Ireland that owns all the IP and gets paid licensing revenue from all the sub 200M companies will serve as the controlling entity.
What's odd is you could
Confiscation part of Communism Reached (Score:2)
Sam : let's rethink the IPO (Score:2)
no public stock, no problem.
Eminent domain (Score:2)
This proposal doesn't look like a tax but rather like seizure via eminent domain. Taking 50% of someone's property is very close to seizing the property outright. If this were allowed, then the government could seize half of someone's real property without any compensation. I imagine that such a move would be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
I listened to a radio interview with Bernie... apparently he wants this so that "citizens can block harmful policies". So that probably explains the 50% - they want voting shares in order to control the boards.
This is a bit more than just taking a stake in companies in order to give taxpayers an opportunity to share in the gains... this is basically nationalization without taking over the entire company.
So I guess I was wrong about where this was coming from. Too bad, since if the tech bros are right and
Delusional (Score:3)
Look at these numbers. To pay every American $1,000/yr, we'd need 35,000 companies as big and successful as Anthropic to create that $7 trillion a year for Americans. Oh, and they'd all have to be at least 50% government owned. And then the government would have to keep their hands off the money. Keep dreaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your numbers are way off. Anthropic is worth nearly $1t, or rather its stock is. So 50% of that goes to the sovereign wealth fund, $500bn. So it would be 14 Anthropic sized companies to reach $7t, and that's a long term goal, not day one.
$7 trillion with a 5% return would be about $20k per US citizen.
Predicable hysteria about "socialism" (Score:2, Troll)
Funny how predictable the responses are here: "That's socialism!" - as if that shuts down the argument.
I personally am horrified by the idea of socialism, and also capitalism. They are both deeply flawed for different reasons.
But unfortunately socialism is inevitable. AI is going to eliminate ALL jobs - ALL of them. So a government handout in some manner is inevitable. And that's socialism. We can't avoid it, sign.
Bernie Sanders is an idiot. But what he proposes (which is not his idea) is probably the best
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a typical blowboy for Corporate Socialism. Social Darwinism for the masses, welfare handouts for the corporations.
Well they do owe you (Score:2)
Corporate Welfare (Score:2)
Most large corporations hugely benefit from public subsidies of one form or another, it's time for an accounting of that and that should be translated into public equity.
AI companies in particular are standing on the shoulders of massive public investment in technology and infrastructure, it's time for the public to directly benefit from that investment.
I'd like to see it more diverse than just AI companies, though.
Good luck with that. (Score:2)
Bernie's ideas, at least the way he articulates them, come across as well intentioned. This is 100% the reason none of them ever come to fruition on the national stage. You can not convince the owner class to penalize the owner class, and that's what it would take to make any of Bernie's ideas stick.
As much as I don't want to see him give up the fight he tries to put up, what a waste of a life. Always cutting against the grain and getting bucked back into place for it.
Re: (Score:2)
He's the same kind of con man as Trump.
He railed against the Banks so when Ron Paul's Audit The Fed bill came to the Senate he cosponsored it.
Then behind closed doors he killed it to protect the Banks. Same way he endorsed Hillary with zero concessions after she maligned him and stole the primary.
It's all Kayfabe and he's a multi-millionaire communist for his efforts.
This proposal is just the latest Theatre Kid stunt to get him some attention. The only kind of attention he deserves is derision.
You don't eve
Politics is the art of the possible (Score:2)
And this isn't possible. The chances of this plan coming to pass are precisely zero. It's a fantasy. Whether it's actually a good idea or not-- that's completely irrelevant.
The real-world effect of this proposal is that it makes the Democrats look like a bunch of loopy socialists. Since we're heading into some *very* important and *very* tightly-contested elections, this is a tone-deaf and deeply irresponsible move on Bernie's part. (If it was anyone other than Bernie, I'd suspect that he was a deep-co
Have we modeled this based on the past? (Score:2)
Would be a heck of a model and not sure I would trust it with so much ability to tweak the variables and make it say anything, but have we tried? Even if just in theory?
I am not opposed to a sovereign wealth fund. That seems to be how countries are going to gain power, influence, and financial stability going forward and I think we need to hop on the bandwagon.
I also think AI is very unique in its c
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
More oversimplifying? Nah, pass.
Re: No thanks (Score:2, Informative)
Well let's examine it in more detail then:
Socialism is defined simply as government owned means of production. Go ahead and pull out a dictionary. Some argue "collective", "community", or some other doublespeak term, but if you look at what they intend that term to mean, it looks like a government and quacks like a government. That said:
Here you have a proposal where 50% of all revenue from sales (not profit) has to be turned over to the government in shares. The only realistic way to do that is by diluting
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not a supporter of Sanders' plan, but it's a one-time tax, so government ownership wouldn't become 100% under it.
Re: (Score:2)
When should we collect the tax? The next startup will say "We're worth $1000, collect your $500 one time tax right now" to avoid paying the billions later on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's keyed to revenue targets, so they don't get to choose when it hits.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really oppose the idea per se, but I don't think it is realistic. Neither the idea itself, nor realizing it with the current US government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wish AI would replace labor, that would make the world a better place. But the reality is the technology isn't there yet.
Re: (Score:3)
"in which case we'll need something like basic income"
you're out of your mind if you spent more than one second believing the same people who oppose unions, overtime pay, universal healthcare & parental vacations, etc, will willingly sign on to free handouts for the general population
Re: (Score:3)
Re: No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not into socialism, but I'm not convinced it's worse than 1 company having control of what's today's entire GDP in the relatively short term. And that's what SpaceX is claiming they'll have in the case for their valuation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
MORE socialism? Where's ANY socialism in the US worth the label?
Also, that capitalism is working out so well. For the thousand or so people at the pinnacle. The average people not so much, but who cares about them, they're poors, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a farmer? Did you attend college on the taxpayer dime via the GI bill? Will you receive social security or medicare? Then I have some disturbing news for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Will you receive social security or medicare? Then I have some disturbing news for you.
Had I been allowed to invest my SS taxes myself in the stock market, I'd have far, far more money for retirement than I'll receive from SS. I'd much prefer that SS did not exist. But since I had to pay in to it, I expect to get back from it.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's terrifying. Know why? It's because YOU are a means of production. Land, LABOR, and Capital are the means of production. If the state controls your labor, it means the state decides where you live and work. By definition and in practice.
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, have we gotten tot he point where people are stupid enough to think a tax is socialism?
Or is it the proposed uses for the money? How DARE the government provide for it's people?
Socialism is the government controlling business, not charging taxes or providing services.
Get your head out of the plutocrat's ass and realize that capitalism is not defined as 'screw the poor, help the rich'.
You would not recognize capitalism if it came up and paid you a million bucks.
Re: (Score:2)
You are either an AI bot, paid to lie or a totally clueless human being.. It is clearly a FIVE percent tax, not a FIFTY percent control.
And they specifically state that no one has to give up any control. You have been reading lies paid for by the billionaires rather than the actual wording of the bill.
You can learn about it here on the far right Fox news:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/po... [foxbusiness.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
More than what, zero?
Re: (Score:2)
More socialism? Nah, pass.
After the discovery of North Sea oil and gas, Britain (under Thatcher) decided to use the money raised to fund taxes for the well off, and essentially gut UK manufacturing.
The Norwegians decided that the best thing to do was to put the money that they raised into a sovereign wealth fund.
You might care to look at which country seems to be doing better...
Re: (Score:2)
The proposal here was not for the government to BUY the stocks, just like anyone else. It was for the government to TAKE the stocks. For free. In return for nothing.
And, regardless, the key difference between capitalism and socialism (in this context) is who owns the means of production: private citizens, or the government? Once the government owns the means of production (whether they bought it or seized it), then that qualifies as socialism.
This slider isn't exactly boolean. It is totally possible fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the government wants ownership it can pay for it with money just like everyone else. It's very simple. (This was always allowed and is common)
You don't get 50% of a company by decree. This isn't the USSR.
Re: No thanks (Score:4, Funny)
tftfy
Re: (Score:2)
yeah someone has to keep the wheel spinning!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which ever group on the left wins, that winner will use the lefts Antifa Anarchist wing to destroy their partners.
History shows the Communist, Islamist and Socialist can not co exist.
As for the few Liberals and Democrats left in the party, they will need to shut up and go with the flow or leave/get kicked out the party.
Re: No thanks (Score:2)
History shows the Communist, Islamist and Socialist can not co exist.
Not sure where you're going with that. History has shown that Communists and Nazis cannot coexist. History has also shown that Islamists, being the religious traditionalist right-wing extremists that they are, cannot coexist with many people, that is not surprising, they essentially hate everyone who is not them.
As for Communists, they can absolutely coexist with others, in fact they do in Kerala for several decades now. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Communists, but get your facts straight.
Re: No thanks (Score:2)
They decided to overshoot by going too far to the left with the Palestine bullshit as if it matters to the 340 million Americans' lives.
Not sure what you mean with that, but: US aid to Israel is in billions every year, and that money is coming from the taxes that the 340 million Americans pay. Just for context. Have you been complaining about how these billions in taxes could be better spent on US health care than on helping Israel do what it does?
Re: No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
It did.
Whose money did you think those bailouts, handouts, stimuli etc were?
Re: No thanks (Score:2)
Because ot's a localized, simplistic view you have.
It's not the government's job to not "leave money on the table" per se. Its job is to ensure prosperity to its citizens - ALL of its citizens. Not leaving money on the table is only part of the game insofar as ot helps advance the primary goal.
Right now, competing for money isn't where it's at; ensuring a uniform distribution of wealth is. And for that, Samder's plan sounds like a better approach than yours.
Re: No thanks (Score:2)
Do you believe democracy is working in capitalist USA? Whose interest is Donald Trump representing? What about Congress? Or are you arguing that the USA is a socialist country?
Re: Fox News Headline Alternative (Score:5, Funny)
Sarah Connor heaves a sigh of relief as Skynet decides to terminate Bernie instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fox News Headline Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
i have news for you: there is no left in america, let alone radical. there is only right, extreme right and fanatical right.
bernie knows prefectly well this is doa, he's just trying to get some attention.
Bernie isn't after attention (Score:2, Troll)
Bernie is following an old activist playbook that used to work back in 1960 and stopped working around the mid 70s when the at the time millionaires and now billionaires adapted to those tactics and made them moot.
It feels like he's after attention because what he is doing is so completely balls to the walls ineffective. But that isn't bec
Re: (Score:2)
America has a left wing, but they are living in the past which is somehow I think ironic assuming I'm using the word correctly. I've been bitching about it for some time howdy left wing and the progressives are extremely conservative when it comes to tactics.
this is quite normal all over the world because the left has always been objectively "weak" in this fight. they're fighting giants after all. its tools are ideals, reason and goodwill and those tend to not fare well against ruthless power long consolidated in media, administration and executive. i'm from a country with a very rich left tradition and it has endured everything in history from mockery to outright mass killings, and the debate is still the same: the left has to reinvent itself! tactics are ofc
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fox News Headline Alternative (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...not a considered response.
You can stop your consideration at the 50% "one time" tax. That is a hard pass from me. Nothing good EVER comes from a one-time tax. They ALWAYS turn into a permanent tax. The rest of his proposal is totally irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I love Bernie, but this sounds like a completely unworkable idea (forced selling of 5% of the stocks every year until they reach zero? Also losing a share voting majority after selling the first 5%?). It's a Frankenstein non-solution for having significant influence on AI companies and redirecting wealth towards the working class.
Full nationalisation of AI companies, progressive corporate tax, corporate wealth tax and other ideas are all better than this.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's why Socialism is terrifyingly evil on its face - do you know what the means of production are? They are land, labor, and capital. Note the second and think about it means if the government controls it. What you do and where you do it suddenly aren't up to you at all.
Re: (Score:2)