Early yesterday,posted a Jonathan Swan blurb about a Bloomberg stop in Compton, California-- Bernie country. Bloomberg-- whose very mediocre $11 million Super Bowl ad was rated the 60th best out of 62 ads that ran (beating just Pop Tart'sand Trump's)-- sees himself as the candidate from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party to stop Bernie after Biden implodes, the first manifestation of which was shown Monday night in Iowa.

Although Bloomberg-- a notorious liar-- told Swan that he'd support Bernie over Trumpanzee if those were his two options, people should understand Sanders at this moment is "so far to the left it's not practical" [and that] "what he wants to do would never get through Congress... I don't agree with him on virtually anything. But I have committed to support the Democratic candidate because I find Trump so unsuited for the job."

He added that he hopes "that if Bernie did win he would change some of his policies, or Congress would make him change some of his policies." There you go-- the voice of an American oligarch who should be running in the primaries of his own party-- the GOP-- rather than as a Democrat. Bloomberg views the Democratic Party as a transactional-- and easily purchased-- vehicle for his own ambitions.

So what does Bloomberg see as so disqualifying in Bernie? Basically... Bernie's entire platform , which is geared towards the 99% of Americans who are not multimillionaires and billionaires. Bloomberg does not want to see people of his class paying for healthcare, education, amelioration of the Climate Crisis (that they created), housing... and he sure doesn't agree with Bernie's tax on extreme wealth , a tax on people with a net worth over over $32 million that would raise over $4 trillion over the next decade and "cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class." The plan also ensures that rich criminals like Trump and Bloomberg "are not able to evade the tax by implementing strong enforcement policies." Bernie:

Today, the United States has more income and wealth inequality than almost any major country on Earth, and it is worse now than at any time since the 1920s.





At a time when millions of Americans are working two or three jobs to feed their families, the three wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people.





Over the last 30 years, the top 1 percent has seen a $21 trillion increase in its wealth, while the bottom half of American society has actually lost $900 billion in wealth. In other words, there has been a massive transfer of wealth from those who have too little to those who have too much. For the sake of our democracy and working families all over America who are struggling economically, that has got to change.





In order to reduce the outrageous level of inequality that exists in America today and to rebuild the disappearing middle class, the time has come for the United States to establish an annual tax on the extreme wealth of the top 0.1 percent of U.S. households.





This wealth tax would only apply to net worth of over $32 million and would raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade. Anyone who has a net worth of less than $32 million would not see their taxes go up at all under this plan.





...This tax on extreme wealth would have a progressive rate structure that would only apply to the wealthiest 180,000 households in America who are in the top 0.1 percent.





It would start with a 1 percent tax on net worth above $32 million for a married couple. That means a married couple with $32.5 million would pay a wealth tax of just $5,000.





The tax rate would increase to 2 percent on net worth from $50 to $250 million, 3 percent from $250 to $500 million, 4 percent from $500 million to $1 billion, 5 percent from $1 to $2.5 billion, 6 percent from $2.5 to $5 billion, 7 percent from $5 to $10 billion, and 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion. These brackets are halved for singles.





Under this plan, the wealth of billionaires would be cut in half over 15 years which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.





Under current law, the IRS is already required to assess the net worth of the wealthiest Americans when they pass away, to calculate estate tax liability. A federal wealth tax would require the IRS to make the same assessment on an annual basis for the wealthiest Americans. Steps would also be taken to streamline the process for purposes of the wealth tax.





For assets that are difficult to appraise, the Treasury Department would have the option of allowing taxpayers to have appraisals done periodically instead of annually. The Treasury Department would establish the average rates of appreciation for several classes of assets. Those appraised only every few years would be assumed to appreciate in the intervening years at the average rate established for their designated class.





Assets placed in a trust would be treated as owned by the grantor of the trust (by the person giving assets to the trust) until that person’s death.





...The reality is that we already have a wealth tax in America – the property tax -and it disproportionately impacts working class families. One of the biggest sources of wealth for middle-income families is owner-occupied homes, which are taxed in most states at rates that can be as high as, or even higher than, 1 percent. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the wealth owned by the top 0.1 percent of Americans is not housing or real property and is not subject to any sort of property tax.





This proposal would ensure that assets owned by the top 0.1 percent are taxed the same way as much of the wealth owned by the middle-class is already taxed.