AOC wants 70% tax on wealthy

Not so - at least a brick has no ideas at all (in contrast to the idiotic ideas of AOC).

 

I suspect that for her, this is what policy-making is. You make a wish list of stuff you want, you find some stats that make your ideas sound important, and then you toss it on down to the regulators to figure out how to make it all happen. That's the extent that her experience will allow her to go, but at the same time, isn't that basically what Washington has been dishing up the past few years? Or what the media has reported? It would be pretty easy to miss the requirements of actual implementation capability in legislation, since no one ever seems to want to talk about it.

 

She does look hot in that video for the first time to me. But I had to look close to see if that was her because it didn’t look like she normally does.

 

The media seems to talk about things based on the desired policy and political outcome. For example, when tax cuts are discussed, the "cost" and the deficit are all we hear about. When it comes to federal expansion, the cost is never treated as a major issue. That's why we have people out there who think we could have had single payer healthcare if we hadn't passed the Bush tax cuts. They think tax cuts cost a lot of money but that entitlements are cheap. They aren't stupid. They're just drawing conclusions based on the emphases that pundits and media figures put on the issues.

 

Economically speaking:

1- the libs are closer to the truth when they at least make a comparison of the cost of tax cuts vs. cost of health care, although the argument is not quite framed that way. They are more often found ignoring the cost of an act like federal expansion.

2-The libs usually enact the following steps to solve a "social problem":

a) They must first state that a problem exists. Usually, this means that they have a preference for one outcome over another. For example, SH stated;

"Caring for those less fortunate vs. a political agenda. Not a tough choice from where I sit."

This is a simpleton's view and poorly stated, but it suffices as a good example. Note that he did not say why they are less fortunate (i.e. geography, lack of effort and personal accountability, cultural problems), how much less fortunate they are, or who is more fortunate and how much more fortunate they are. He just states that there is a problem calling for a government solution.

b) The lib also states that solving this social problem is a "categorical imperative". SH states it "is not a tough choice from where I sit". I assume he is sitting in the back of the classroom. What he tries to do is move the social decision making process away from the millions of people interacting on a daily basis that have to deal with reality everyday, to himself, the ALL KNOWING, morally conscious Lib.

c) Once the "problem" has been stated, and that enacting a solution is a "categorical imperative", the Lib must then take away your freedom to enact his "solution". SH clumsily compares his "solution" to other's "political agenda", which allows him to avoid determining the costs involved with his political solution. What he should be comparing his solution to is the dollars the government will forcibly take from American taxpayers, and the loss of freedom associated with that taking. What opportunities are tax payers giving up to enact SH's centralized decision making in order to meet his categorical imperative? That is the true cost that SH, and everyone, needs to recognize. Last, when will the "solution" being force upon everyone be enacted? What defines success?

Given the diversity of opinions, morals, economic conditions present among the millions of decision makers in the market, the Libs should not be surprised that their categorical imperatives, and their desire to take away freedom to meet those imperatives, will be met with resistance and evasion. This will cause the Lib to take away more freedoms in hopes of achieving their success. How much freedom will people voluntarily give up? That's a good question to ask.

 

1) Open borders - who's less fortunate? The entire population south of the Rio Grande? Who will pay for them?
2) Socialism - blank check for those less fortunate. The exponential growth of the federal bureaucracy.
3) Late term abortion (or just after delivery according to black face) - The mother is less fortunate?
4) Gun Control - the scariest part of all. Disarm the population while exploding the power of the federal government; put in the hands of fanatics like AOC.

 

AOC,after getting ridiculed by knowledgeable people that her call " to move America to 100% clean and renewable energy” within 10 years( this was in the info she sent NPR and NPR posted) is not remotely possible
and her call for financial help even for those "unwilling to work" ( which has been archived off her own website
Now she is saying she did not write that
and she is saying the info on her web site was just a draft
and she is saying she could have been hacked
and she is saying the GOP is spreading rumors.
For a Millennial she is pretty stupid about things that get posted in the net.

 

It's possible to find an unflattering picture of anybody.

 

I’ve only seen unflattering pictures until I seen this one seductive looking video. So we are seeing two different things

 

AOC is very much like the Seinfeld girl who looks good in one light and bad in another. In certain angles, she looks very attractive. In other angles, or other poses, or other expressions, the teeth get huge, the nostrils flair, the eyes bulge and she starts to look like an asylum inmate.

 

She looks her worst when she gets that maniacal gleam in her eyes when she talks about socialism.

 

She has no problem calling for complete upheaval of the US economy which will result in poverty and starvation.

But she won't clap for the fact that the US ICE is catching human traffickers at the border. People who exploit and even sexually abuse women.

I don't see her as stupid. I see her as immoral.

 

It only matters when a smirking white dude abuses a woman, not another illegal from Central America.

 

Hyper-technical critique of headline: her quotes reference income rather than wealth.

Interestingly, per the headline at least, she calls for a 70% tax on the wealthy. That says nothing about taxing income... Somehow, I doubt many of her ardent supporters would understand the difference.

 

At some point, left-leaning pols will likely be in control. When they pass massive tax hikes on high and very high income earners, just look to not-so-distant history to see what will happen. Crafty tax lawyers and accountants will find all sorts of existing and new and exotic loopholes. Further, those left-leaning pols with significant wealth/income from certain sources will favor those sources and create loopholes in the legislation for said sources.

High and very high earners will take advantage of such loopholes and not actually pay much in the way of taxes. That's why, in the 1960s-70s, you had lots of doctors who were also minority partners/members in feedlots, oil wells, and other 'exotic' investments, etc.

On a macro level, it will distort investment from the most efficient use of capital to whatever sector the legislators favor (multi-family housing, oil and gas--I doubt that one will be favored next go-round, solar panels, wind farms, organic farms, electric autos, etc.).

Also, look for weird uses of alternative currency (bitcoins, etc.) in transactions to avoid taxes. Very high earners are often smart, and those who aren't generally have smart advisors--they'll figure plenty of ways out of paying 70%+ on their income.

 

Speaking of all this recent praise of socialism including by AOC, I wonder how many kids wearing Che Guevara shirts know he strongly opposed: (i) trial before execution, (ii) homosexuals*, (iii) Catholics, (iv) due process, (v) liberalism, (vi) freedom of the press, (vii) citizens' ability to leave their country, (viii) pay for involuntary work performed, (ix) freedom of speech, and (x) so much more...

He did strongly support nuking NYC (literally)--I wonder if any New York kids wearing Che shirts know that. Might as well wear a Pol Pot shirt to the next AOC rally.

*the ultimate irony would occur if someone wore a Che shirt at one of those LGBT parades or rallies.

 

Regardless of tax rates, tax revenues run 15-19% of GDP. That should help Libs understand that higher tax rates don’t work.

 

Perhaps the lovely AOC could take a fact finding trip to the tropical workers paradise of Venezuela. She could come back and tell us how to best run a country after seeing real socialism in action.

I knew one real old-timer who worked for decades with Creole Petroleum (aka Exxon in Venezuela). He described a really great place--back then at least. Perhaps if I only had a Che t-shirt, I could put it on and see Creole for the harmful capitalist imperialist institution that it was. Neither Chavez nor Maduro ever mentioned that without US know-how their massive oilfields would not have been discovered, and certainly would not have been developed.

Here's a bit of capitalist propaganda/fake news I just found: "Since president Hugo Chavez fired 18,000 PDVSA employees and replaced them with avowed loyalists of his own party, PDVSA has suffered from a series of safety and productivity problems." [PDVSA is the state-owned oil company that took over Creole]

 

I know a few Venezuelans and they say graft and corruption has been rampant there for many years. You cannot hail a cab there because you can't carry, literally, enough cash to pay the driver. The drivers give you a piece of paper with a number on it that you can wire funds to.

The country's artificial, enforced exchange rate for the dollar is so unrealistic, given the Venezuelan inflation, that you cannot transfer money to the country unless you want to lose all value in the exchange.

In the socialist country of Peru the monthly wage is $350 for just about everyone. Farmers get about $50. Beautiful country, but Socialism is holding them back from...well...everything.

 

Well, at least the socialist countries like Venezuela are better at protecting the environment... (see 1:30 - about 5:00 of video below). On a similar note, surely the former Soviet Union must be one of the most pristine natural environments on Earth. AOC's push towards socialism is "green" after all.

 

Because we know that legislators have never been about paying their taxes. It's about other people paying their taxes. They have the opportunity to write the laws, create loopholes that allow them to deduct because they know how to do it, but still virtue-signal that they raised taxes.

We can throw out Venezuela all day long and it won't matter, because they're not arguing (most of them) that they want to go that far. Their vision is Europe, and in the eyes of the East/West coast elites, is that "everything is wonderful in Europe. People are happy, the food is good, and when I go there (or talking about go there) I feel smug and superior. That's how I want America to be!!"

Without understanding that everything in Europe was built on free markets, and that even now socialism is more of a veneer posted on top of a capitalist foundation, and that in fact the more that foundation gets pulled apart, the more stagnant Europe becomes... then everyone can say "See? They're happy over there. It must work!"

Ultimately if you don't care about free speech, if you're OK with giving more than half your earnings to the government, you don't have to use hospitals much and you're OK with scheduling all your medical issues for the first of the year before the doctors all run out of funding and close up shop, then Europe's a great model for you.

 

It's real easy to go socialist when you have the US to protect you and to invent stuff for you. If the US goes socialist, who's gonna back us up?

 

Where would Canadians go for health care?

 

As I've said before, my Father was from Cuba. His entire family agrees that Che was a murderer and a despot, even my cousin who hates Trump and whose entire being on Facebook is Liberal activism.

 

The proposed 70% marginal tax rate is imposed on earned income in excess of $10,000,000, not on the full $10,000,000. Also, that amount is post exemptions, deductions and credits. "Approximately 16,000 Americans earned over $10 million in 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, according to The Washington Post. That's about 0.05% of all households, or 1 in 2,000, Post reporter Jeff Stein noted."

So, what is and what isn't earned income? "Earned income includes include wages, salaries, bonuses, commissions, tips and net earnings from self-employment. The not-so-obvious items involve long-term disability and union strike benefits; and in some cases, even payments from certain deferred retirement compensation via 401ks, pensions and stock-option plans."

"Examples of what isn’t considered earned income and, therefore, non-taxable, include welfare, unemployment, worker’s compensation and social security benefits, disbursements from non-deferred pensions and retirement plans, capital gains, alimony (but this may change soon), interest income, stock dividends and bond interest, and passive income generated from rental property."

So, the question to ask is, are you in that situation? If yes, congratulations! You have done very well! If not, don't worry about it, unless you work for business owners who are and may takes steps they deem necessary to maintain their standard of living.

For those worried about the US becoming a socialist nation, guess what? The US has been a socialist nation since the New Deal of the 1930's when Congress passed the Social Security Act.

See the information in the following links:
Who Would Pay a 70% Tax Rate on Income Over $10 Million? -- The Motley Fool

Earned Income | Internal Revenue Service

Earned Income

 

"If not don't worry about it?'
So only people in that tippy top bracket should be concerned?
because it is such a small number it is ok?

 

This again... are we going to have to go back and do the whole "What is Socialism" thing again? Government spending is not socialism. Taxation is not socialism. Public works are not socialism.

 

Good points, but our definitions of "what is socialism" differ. Mine is a focus on what government programs (whether at the state or federal level) are established to accomplish, such as unemployment benefits, medicare, medicaid, and so on which are good programs providing assistance to the public at large. The act of taxation is not socialism, but the programs are per my definition.