I guess that's a new way of trying to avoid answering questions.

Can't imagine how the OP would have missed that when they were copy/pasting. Seems strange they would they leave it out.

Oh well. I'm sure it was a totally inadvertent omission.

When Sanders first ran, I read everything I could about him. Much of the it came from the Vermont Digger, which provided good local coverage by journalists familiar with him. It's a good paper.

Btw, what I learned back then made me decide not he was the wrong stuff for the presidency. Since then, imo his own behavior has revealed he's the wrong stuff for any position of power in a democracy.

With the OP being so long, with numerous links, I never even got to that link. You can challenge the veracity of the source ... but to call that a "right wing talking point", with that being the first I've seen of it, is a bit dismissive.

But I'm used to the BS supporters being that way. They'll jump through hoops to dismiss anything that he has said, or done. It's nice to see others around here are willing to take this seriously and actually engage is substantive debate. I'm sure you'll be seeing far more left wing vetting of both BS and his wife this time around.

"upon her departure in 2011, received a total package of $200,000, consisting of one year's severance pay, along with certain retirement and bonus payments".

One year of severance pay does not have to be 1 year of salary at the same rate you were being paid before.

These things can negotiated, esp. in light of the schools financial troubles.

We also don't know how much of the balance was deferred, maybe she agreed to $40K payout in cash and $160K in retirement benefits?

And maybe that was spread across two calendar years of monthly payments (2011 and 2012) ...

Frankly there's lots of legit reasons why there's no $200K to be found on any tax returns based on these Wiki numbers.

My husband got a severance check from a job once, and it was just a one-off of a flat amount.

I'm not saying I know for sure either way, just to be clear, only that are a various legit explanations for 'why the 200K doesn't stick out'.

This is kind of funny. Now I know where the “golden parachute” malarkey came from.

Some butt hurt mini Koch brother Bernie busted for gas price fixing.

In the simplest sense, the person paying gets to continue to collect interest on unpaid monies, and the recipient may well get to lower their tax burden. When you're talking sums like $200K, you tend to get a buncha eggheads (no offense ) and lawyers involved.

Interesting story about the Gas Guy, hadn't read that before.

I'm sure all the millionaire golden parachute recipients think their arrangements were "earned", but that doesn't answer why it's not anywhere on the Sanders' taxes.

She made $149,000 that year (her annual salary, rounding). Bernie’s salary is about $170,000. That looks to be the income on that line. About $100,000 short, and that’s only going on the narrative that she received compensation other than monetary to make up the $200,000.

His W2 income 2014-2018 without any W2 income from her is between $135 - 150k. Keep in mind this includes employer sponsored retirement deductions from his published Senator pay.

The two years 2012 and 2013 she received the severance their Line 7 W2 income is $250k and $238k.

Makes sense to me.

were there, but we’re just speculating. It still goes against Bernie’s own words of golden parachutes being “immoral”.

which surely would be paid in increments, not lump sum, no?

Unless there was some retirement involved then possibly reported on a 1099R. Absolutely the responsibility of the university?(wherever she was employed) to file the correct form for Jane to incorporate on her tax return.

...note that 2011 is the shortest of all the returns listed, apparently incomplete (as is 2014 and maybe others, I didn't bother to look)

The total income for 2011 should be about $200,000 higher, or at least spread over 2011 and 2012. It's totally missing.

I guess we see now what Sanders' meant by crossing the t's and dotting the i's before he could release their already completed tax returns.

...they don't show sources of income, tax-free investments, to whom charitable contributions were sent, etc.

They are revised taxes, but not what was reported. I can't imagine submitting my taxes anywhere after I had revised them unless I labeled them as revised.

Dotting i's and crossing t's...

Rather than a lump sum.

Bernie wants to close the book on his tax issue as soon as possible so he might as well address this now.