Name: 伯尼大戰億萬富翁們 | 今日解密 (Bernie vs. the billionaires | Today, Explained)
Uploaded: 2026-03-14T16:37:31.000Z
Duration: 21 min 43 s

Hi, and welcome to Today Explained Saturday.

嗨，歡迎來到「今日解說星期六」。

This week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

這週，我們請到佛蒙特州參議員伯尼·桑德斯。

程度副詞

Senator Bernie Sanders has just introduced his Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair share Act, a 5% annual wealth tax on anyone making more than a billion dollars.

參議員伯尼·桑德斯剛推出了他的「讓億萬富翁支付公平份額法案」，這是一項針對年收入超過十億美元的人徵收 5% 年度財富稅的法案。

Now, that would be roughly 930ish people.

現在，這大約會影響到 930 位左右的人。

And of course, it includes some big names.

當然，這也包含了一些響亮的名字。

Someone like Elon Musk would pay up to $40 billion under the law.

像是 Elon Musk，根據這項法案，他可能要繳納高達 400 億美元。

Someone like Mark Zuckerberg, about 11 billion.

像是 Mark Zuckerberg，大約是 110 億美元。

But Senator Sanders said it would fund something important.

但桑德斯參議員說，這將會資助一件重要的事情。

Up to $3,000 in direct payments for anyone living in a household that makes less than $150,000.

讓家庭年收入低於 15 萬美元的任何人，能直接獲得高達 3,000 美元的補助。

That means up to $12,000 for a family of four.

這意味著一家四口最高可以拿到 12,000 美元。

Now, this bill has little chance of becoming law.

不過，這項法案成為法律的機會不大。

Donald Trump would almost certainly veto it, and it's a hard chance it would even get through Congress.

Donald Trump 幾乎肯定會否決它，而且它很難通過國會。

But I still think it's important because it speaks to something that's been growing among the American public and a signal that Senator Sanders is setting when it comes to the 2026 elections and, of course, the 2028 presidential election.

但我還是覺得這很重要，因為它說出了一些在美國民眾中日益增長的事情，以及桑德斯參議員在 2026 年選舉以及當然還有 2028 年總統大選中所發出的訊號。

So I wanted to ask Senator Sanders how this bill would actually work.

所以我想問桑德斯參議員這項法案實際上會如何運作。

But since I had him on the line, I also wanted to ask about some other topics that have been in the news, like AI and the future of work.

但既然我能連線到他，我也想問一些最近新聞上出現的其他話題，像是 AI 和工作的未來。

His recent calls for a moratorium on building data centers and.

他最近呼籲暫停建造資料中心，以及。

And of course, the US Israeli strikes on Iran.

當然，還有美國以色列對伊朗的襲擊。

But we had a little bit of trouble connecting when we first got on the line, which got me a peek at that classic Bernie humor.

但我們一開始連線時遇到了一點小麻煩，這讓我得以一窺 Bernie 那經典的幽默。

我什麼都聽不到，但我看得到你。

Has anyone ever played a game with you and God?

I know that it's limited, so I want to jump right into it.

我知道時間有限，所以我想直接切入重點。

Most Democrats have condemned the US Surrealist strikes in Iran, but Donald Trump is blowing ahead.

大部分的民主黨人都譴責了美國以色列對伊朗的襲擊，但 Donald Trump 卻在往前衝。

Obviously, Congressman Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie's War Powers Resolution failed to pass the House, meaning any chance of congressional action to rein in Trump seems less and less likely by the day.

很明顯，國會議員羅·克哈納和湯瑪斯·馬西提出的戰爭權力決議未能通過眾議院，這意味著國會阻止川普的任何行動機會似乎一天比一天渺茫。

If you're an American who doesn't support this war, as many do seem to not, is there any recourse coming from Congress?

如果你是個不支持這場戰爭的美國人，就像很多人似乎不支持一樣，國會還有什麼補救措施嗎？

Well, I think what we have got to do is pull the financial plug here.

嗯，我認為我們必須做的就是切斷這裡的財政來源。

I think what we have got to do, do our best in saying, is that not only is this war unconstitutional, not only is it illegal when we have so many strong domestic needs in terms of housing and health care and Education.

我認為我們必須做的，盡力去說的是，這場戰爭不僅違憲，而且當我們在住房、醫療保健和教育方面有這麼多強烈的國內需求時，這也是非法的。

We're going to be just throwing tens of billions of dollars into another endless war.

我們將會把數百億美元投入到另一場無止盡的戰爭中。

So I think taking a look at how we finance wars is one of the areas that we've got to move to.

所以我認為檢視我們如何資助戰爭是我們必須著手進行的領域之一。

But bottom line is we've got to do everything that we can to stop Trump's reckless foreign policy, which is not only unconstitutional, not having gone to Congress, it is in violation of international law and will lead, in my view, to international anarchy.

但歸根結底是，我們必須盡一切努力阻止川普魯莽的外交政策，這不僅違憲，沒有經過國會準許，而且違反國際法，在我看來，將會導致國際無政府狀態。

Anybody will be attacking anybody for any reason.

任何人都可以因為任何理由攻擊任何人。

I want to ask about that funding piece, because that was what I plan to follow up with.

我想問關於資金的問題，因為這是我原本打算接著問的。

Some Democrats have kind of gone back and forth about whether they should continue funding the war even as they vocalize disagreement, some saying that we're already in it and so minus, well, support military action, others have kind of hedged.

有些民主黨人對於是否該繼續資助戰爭，即使他們表達了反對意見，態度有些搖擺不定。

有些人說，我們已經身在其中了，所以要減少，嗯，支持軍事行動，其他人則有點含糊其辭。

You don't think Democrats should be funding this war if they're going to call it reckless and illegal?

我想請你針對這一點多說一點。

Obviously, I mean, you're not all your colleagues agree with that.

你不認為民主黨人如果認為這場戰爭魯莽且非法，就不應該資助它嗎？

顯然，我的意思是，並非你所有的同事都同意這一點。

You know, if you think the war is unnecessary, it's illegal, it's unconstitutional, why would you continue to fund it?

You're just making, you know, giving Trump the ammunition, so to speak, that he needs to continue.

你知道，如果你認為這場戰爭是不必要的、非法的、違憲的，為什麼還要繼續資助它呢？

你只是在給川普彈藥，讓他能夠繼續下去。

I guess I was just asking because it did not seem kind of universal from the caucus.

I also wanted to ask about a wealth test.

我還想問一下關於財富稅的事。

You and Congressman Khanna introduced this bill that would have a 5% annual tax on wealth for anyone making over $1 billion.

你和國會議員羅·克哈納提出了一項法案，對年收入超過十億美元的人徵收 5% 的年度財富稅。

And importantly, this is a wealth tax, not an income tax.

而且重要的是，這是財富稅，不是所得稅。

So things like assets and stock accumulation are also in play.

所以像資產和股票累積這些也都在考量範圍內。

Well, I think we wanted to make very clear that today we have more income and wealth inequality than we've ever had in the history.

嗯，我認為我們想非常清楚地表明，今天我們所擁有的所得和財富不平等，是我們歷史上從未有過的。

我們都讀過鍍金時代的故事，對吧？

Nickels and dimes compared to where we are right now.

跟我們現在的狀況比起來，簡直是小巫見大巫。

We're living in a moment where the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 93%, where one man, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of American households, where while 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, the billionaire class has seen its wealth increase by a trillion and a half dollars since Trump was elected.

我們正處於一個這樣的時代，頂層 1% 的人擁有的財富比底層 93% 的人還多，一個人，Elon Musk，擁有的財富比底層 53% 的美國家戶還多，而當我們 60% 的民眾過著月月光的生活時，自從川普當選以來，億萬富翁階級的財富卻增加了 1.5 兆美元。

So I think the point is that at a time of so much Inequality, We've gotta ask the wealthiest people to stop paying their fair share of taxes.

所以我想重點是，在如此不平等的時代，我們得要求最富有的人們繳納他們應盡的稅款。

I personally think starting off at a billion dollars is the appropriate way to go.

我個人認為從 10 億美元開始是個恰當的做法。

I mean, the goal of the revenue is to send $3,000 checks to every American in a household making under 150k.

我的意思是，這筆收入的目標是發送 3,000 美元的支票給所有年收入低於 15 萬美元的家庭。

Should I see this as a means of funding a kind of universal basic income?

我應該把這看成是資助某種形式的普遍基本收入嗎？

It says that at a time when the very richest people are becoming much, much richer, while ordinary Americans today are struggling to put food on the table or pay for childcare or pay for health care, the working class of this country needs immediate help.

它指出，在這個最富有的族群變得越來越富有的時代，而普通美國人卻在為食物、育兒或醫療保健而掙扎，這個國家的勞動階級需要立即的幫助。

And that's, by the way, just the one year provision.

順帶一提，這只是為期一年的規定。

$3,000 for every man, woman and child in a family of under 150,000.

針對年收入低於 15 萬美元的家庭，每位男性、女性和兒童可獲得 3,000 美元。

But on top of that, we make massive investments every year in childcare, in housing, in education, in health care, in addressing the basic needs of working class Americans.

但除此之外，我們每年還會在育兒、住房、教育、醫療保健方面進行大量投資，以滿足勞動階級美國人的基本需求。

And yet, everything being equal, our kids will have a lower standard of living than we will.

然而，在一切都平等的情況下，我們的孩子將比我們擁有更低的生活水準。

All of our people should have a decent standard of living.

我們所有人都應該擁有體面的生活水準。

And we've got to address the massive level of income and wealth inequality to do that.

為此，我們必須解決巨大的收入和財富不平等問題。

I definitely want to underscore, I definitely hear the importance of underscoring income inequality and the wealth disparity.

我絕對要強調，我絕對聽到了強調收入不平等和財富差距的重要性。

But France tried a wealth tax and repealed it.

但法國試過財富稅，後來又廢除了。

the European countries that have gone back have almost universally said that it was because capital left or evasion meant that they did not see the necessary revenue returns.

那些回頭的歐洲國家幾乎一致表示，這是因為資本外流或逃稅，導致他們沒有看到預期的收入回報。

Well, I think we need to enact that legislation and then we need a political movement to make sure that it is implemented.

嗯，我認為我們需要通過那項立法，然後我們需要一個政治運動來確保它得以實施。

One of the things said that, I mean, that's a pretty high standard.

有人說，我的意思是，這是一個相當高的標準。

Well, one of the things that is really troubling to me is what you are saying is, look, even if the American people want it, these guys will evade it one way or another.

嗯，讓我非常困擾的一件事是，你說的是，看看，即使美國人民想要，這些傢伙也會想辦法逃避。

Other countries have repealed the wealth tax because of that exact problem.

其他國家因為這個問題已經廢除了財富稅。

如果我們說的是這些傢伙，而且

I was out in California a few weeks ago, they're dealing with a state wealth tax.

幾週前我在加州，他們正在處理州財富稅。

And the issue there is that 15 million people, including many in California and Vermont, have been thrown off the health care they have in order to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks of the 1% and with the 1% are saying is, you want us to pay more in taxes so the working class people and children will have health care.

那裡的問題是，有 1500 萬人，包括加州和佛蒙特州的許多人，他們原本的醫療保健被取消了，以便給予 1% 的人一兆美元的稅收減免，而 1% 的人說的是，你們要我們多繳稅，這樣工薪階層和孩子們才能有醫療保健。

Well, if you pass that, you know what we're going to do?

嗯，如果你們通過了，你們知道我們會怎麼做嗎？

We're going to move to Texas, we're going to move to Florida, because you know why?

我們要搬到德州，我們要搬到佛州，因為你們知道為什麼嗎？

So your choice is either you take cuts in health care, do away with health care, or we take away your jaw.

所以你們的選擇是，要嘛你們削減醫療保健，取消醫療保健，要嘛我們拿走你們的嘴巴。

字幕列表影片播放

伯尼大戰億萬富翁們 | 今日解密 (Bernie vs. the billionaires | Today, Explained)

unprecedented

issue

concern

deal