AOC wants 70% tax on wealthy

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Horn6721, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    I just can't relate to this type of comment. Abusive taxpayers? I'm almost wondering if I didn't read it correctly.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 1,000+ Posts

    We can debate whether it's fair to divide taxes up among citizens based on property values. But if that's the system, its integrity depends on fair appraisals. If one taxpayer's appraisal is artificially low, he pays less than his fair share and all other taxpayers pay a little extra to make up for it. A taxpayer who goes out of his way to secure an artificially low appraisal is abusing the system at the expense of all others.

    Note that I am not saying that all tax appeals are abusive. If taxpayers have a viable case that their property is overvalued, then by all means they should pursue an appeal.
  3. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    When you hear Pelosi and Co. want to roll back Trump's tax cut and AOC's proposal to tax every body in the country into bankruptcy, you have to ask yourself; "why would anyone vote for these lunatics?".

    Add to that the fact that they hate the country's white/Christian majority and they'd like to replace the foundation that the country was founded upon: the Constitution, the electoral college, etc. with a system of their own design, and any reasonable person would have to conclude that they're far scarier than Trump.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Hot Hot x 1
  4. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Ive noticed you good folks always seem to think people disagree with you are somehow irredeemably defective. Usually it's - Liar, Nazi, Racist, Homophobic, Nationalist, Fascist, KKK. Much more interesting though is how easily and frequently you get away with it. It is really kind of fascinating. Believe me on this, it is a one way street. I once heard from management for suggesting a liberal poster here needed to either get back to his kegel exercises, or drop them (I forget which). I kid not. I thought it was rather mild and humorous. But no, folks took it seriously. Can you imagine. It's a microcosm of our current society at large, isnt it? Different rules for different people. But double standards never end well. You should know that.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    To be fair, that's not what she's proposing. She's proposing taxing only those earning over $10m, and that on those higher earnings. In fact, she's claiming (or sounds like) that she wants something like 10% for everyone else. And I think that she probably actually believes this will work and that it's a good idea.

    Her issue is that she gets her mathematics from Fantasyland, not that she wants to raise taxes on everyone. I think she actually has the typical millennial view that there's this big hoard of cash that rich white people are hiding, and if we just decided to tax the crap out of that hoard, all our problems would be solved because the rich white people in question would be too stupid to figure out ways to avoid paying staggering levels of taxation. Which is odd because they've shown themselves to be really good at that in the past.

    "This is called hostage-taking. And no one can compromise or negotiate with that."

    OK so according to AOC... They can't compromise with Trump on the wall because he's "taken America hostage" as a result of the Dems' unwillingness to compromise.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    AOC's plan as she stated it was 10% on everyone earning under 75k.
    and she went to the tippy top with the 60-70%.
    she did not mention what rates between 75k and tippy top

    But I am guessing the 43.5% who pay no taxes now will not be happy.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    I read that taxing 70% of incomes after $10 million would generate about $50 billion/yr.

    The green new deal would cost about $1 trillion/year.

    The people promoting this plan are the definition of stupid. Unless, the unstated goal is just to find excuses to take more money any way they can get it. I could believe either thing at this point.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Though the rich have a lot of wealth, there isn't enough income to apply a marginal tax rate the raise enough funds for their priorities the extreme left is advocating (single payer healthcare, free college education). It's pure fantasy to believe taxing such a small portion of the population will raise enough $$$ to fund any programs that reach the entire population.

    With that said, our marginal tax rates in the upper brackets are at modern historical lows. That top bracket in the 50's was in the 90% range and that was considered our nations glory years. We have an ever increasing income gap in this country that needs to be addressed or the "proletariat" will overthrow the "aristocracy". I just hope its by peaceful means.
  10. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    I don't think reality evasion is the same thing as stupidity. I've been told by successful, well-educated folks that the Trump and Bush tax cuts would decrease the deficit. It can be fun to believe in fantasy.
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    This is true, but it's a bit deceptive because the tax base was far narrower in the 1950s. The wealthy had significant tax shelters and loopholes back then that they lost later (especially in the 1986 tax reform), and it made enough of a difference that their effective rate wasn't much higher than they are today. In fact, the top 1 percent actually pays a bigger share of the tax burden today than they did in 1960 when the top rate was 91 percent. Link.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The top 1% has a greater burden while also acquiring a much higher % of our nations wealth compared to the 60's. We may disagree but I think concentration of wealth in our country is one of the greatest threats to our continued prosperity. When Trump supporters realize that it isn't the Mexican that is the reason for their situation but rather that Executive that profited by automating/outsourcing their job then we have a real problem.
  13. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Liquor Man

    They did increase revenue, but both parties spent more than the increase. One root problem is in the spending side of the equation. Another lies in the assumption that the federal government should be doing all of the things it currently does.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  14. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    It has been repeatedly explained to you that the "income gap" is a fallacy and that your communist view of the proletariat and the aristocracy is childish and false, but you just don't seem to be enamored with the facts.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    Okay, oh great one, explain how one persons, or group of persons, wealth is a great threat to our continued prosperity. This will be good to know.

    Let her rip big boy...
  16. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    And SH calls me an extremist.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. LongestHorn

    LongestHorn 1,000+ Posts

    Donald Trump: Soak The Rich
  18. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    • Like Like x 4
  19. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    This is true, but it's disproportionate. The relative burden is higher now, even accounting for the greater percentage of the wealth. I didn't bring that up to dispute that the wealthy are doing well. They are. I brought it up to illustrate that the socialists like AOC and Bernie Sanders who bring up the higher tax rates from the '50s are comparing apples to oranges. If we adopted the 1950s tax rates with the current tax base, we would not return to a 1950s-style economy with comparable taxes. We'd likely destroy the modern US economy because basically every person in the US with significant money would flea to a country that isn't as economically illiterate as AOC clearly is, and they would have a lot of options.

    Of course, we could adopt the previous rates and re-open the loopholes, but that wouldn't solve the problem (or arguable problem) of the wealthy underpaying. Furthermore, it would create economic inefficiencies and distortions. Of course, tax accountants and tax lawyers would definitely enjoy it.

    I don't think the concentration of wealth is a problem if people closer to the bottom are doing reasonably well. If your average middle class guy can still generally care for his family reasonably comfortably, then I don't think it's a problem if the guy at the top lives in a mansion and owns a private jet. If large numbers of people are struggling to eat and avoid homelessness while the wealthy are living in mansions and owning private jets, that is a major economic and social problem.

    Ultimately, anytime we make it easier to pay someone less money or no money, it hurts that person. So yes, automation and outsourcing (especially to overseas firms) hurt him, but we also hurt him if we import labor that competes with him. Does the Mexican hurt the factory worker in Michigan? Probably not that much. Does the Mexican hurt the meat packer, the construction worker, the landscaper, the maid, the bus boy (jobs that are low-skilled but involve manual labor that can't be easily sent overseas)? No question about it.

    And always keep in mind that at least this group of Trump supporters only became Trump supporters because the Democratic Party basically decided that identity politics and global corporatism were more lucrative political priorities on which to focus than improving their economic situation. The "deplorables" are the same "hardworking white Americans" that Hillary Clinton was appealing to in 2008.

    We can't stop automation and shouldn't, but we can do something about outsourcing by changing the incentives. We can make it easier and cheaper to do business in the United States (lowering taxes and relaxing the regulatory burden where appropriate) and by making it more expensive to outsource jobs to other locations with cheaper labor (tariffs or other taxes and regulations). But all of that is more difficult than talking about subjective race, gender, and sexuality issues that can never be resolved (because they're subjective). I'm generally not a fan of tariffs (unless they're reciprocal or unless there's a real national security reason for them such as steel during a time of war), but it is funny to see people scoffing at them today when they were ok with them ten minutes ago. And of course, some on the Right do the same in reverse.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Nailed it!:bow:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. mb227

    mb227 2,500+ Posts

    The leftists in FantasyLand tend not to accept harshes on their buzz man.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. mb227

    mb227 2,500+ Posts

    To say nothing of the fact that the proposal was a ONE TIME thing, not an annual stealing such as AOC wants to see occur.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. mb227

    mb227 2,500+ Posts

    This is certainly not out of the and I have BOTH explored options outside of the United States and our collective holdings would not place us in the top 1%. Substantial, but NOT top 1%. However, the lunacy of the lefttards has us seriously exploring options...

    Real problems come in when many of those allegedly struggling HAVE the ability to NOT struggle but choose not to simply because they feel the government should be handing them all their crap and taking it from those that HAVE earned the funds and abilities to live nicely.

    Look at the bum population within the millennial demographic that fled to the left coast because of pot being legalized...and then look at the problems that same demographic has brought about precisely because of their unwillingness to work. Look at the incessant whining that government needs to allow them to say on mommy and daddy's insurance well into the late 20's. In generations past, you turned 18 and moved out, often with college and then employment, returning to visit the 'rents at the holidays. Now they want to stay at home and play XBox all day long while texting away...anything to avoid the reality of entering the real world and taking care of themselves.
  24. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    • Like Like x 1
  25. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

  26. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    More accurately, if she had (R) after her name. Plenty of attractive (R) women who are vilified or ignored by the media.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    Julian Castro, who'll announce his candidacy for Vice President, er, I mean President pretty soon, says he favors a tax rate around 90% for the top income group. Elizabeth Warren is thought to favor something in the 90% range too.

    Who will be the first dem/socialist to top that figure? It's a race to the top, with each candidate declaring that their hatred for rich people is greater than their fellow Dems. That's pretty funny considering most of them are rich.

    Proposing these massive tax increases is largely an exercise in futility. As Deez and others have pointed out, the rich aren't stupid. They'll just become citizens of some Caribbean island or S. American nation. It'll just drive wealth out of the U.S. at a time when Dems are proposing massive entitlement programs.
  28. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    You're assuming she's thought her plan through enough to answer that question.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  29. huisache

    huisache 2,500+ Posts

    if everybody pays at least 15% that means all the people who now pay no taxes at all? Count me in. I have long felt that everybody should pay something in income taxes just so they know where all the "government money" comes from. As of now, they don't.

    Hurray for AOC for introducing a bit of sanity into the system (he smirked)
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  30. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not sure what's sadder - that the Democratic Party is seriously considering what's basically a nation-destroying economic policy or that the GOP is going to nominate one of the incredibly few candidates who is capable of losing to that policy. If Democrats actually run on a tax rate that high, there should be no blue states. Massachusetts and California should be seriously winnable, but that's not going to happen. We're going to give that agenda the biggest likelihood of winning that we possibly can.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page