AOC wants 70% tax on wealthy

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

  1. Chop

    Chop 500+ Posts

    Maybe some lurking history buffs could help me here, but wasn't having a national Bank of the United States an incredibly divisive issue, arguably unconstitutional, almost set off an early civil war, and that destroyed the political futures of several big-name founding fathers?

    I'm well aware of the Fed. But this proposal (and the old Bank of the United States) is an entirely different animal.
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  2. Chop

    Chop 500+ Posts

    This gives a whole nother meaning to 'banking by mail.'
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    • WTF? WTF? x 4
  4. Monahorns

    Monahorns 1,000+ Posts

    To Cortez and other Communists EVERYTHING is political and must be centrally commanded. She is a normal Communist.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  5. Chop

    Chop 500+ Posts

    Well, I suppose an ambiguous "70% tax on wealthy" (whatever that actually means :confused2:) beats a 70% tax on wealth.
  6. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 5
  7. I35

    I35 2,500+ Posts

  8. Monahorns

    Monahorns 1,000+ Posts

    I would much rather Congress sell their extra homes and automobiles and stop buying all their food at Whole Foods. They need to direct themselves to a cost of living increase. If they take "dark money" they should go to jail.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    The gut reaction when we talk about pay raises is, "they're politicians and they suck. **** 'em."

    The problem I have with this is twofold. First, politicians are elected officials. We choose them. If they suck, it's because we suck. AOC sucks, but she's just a reflection of the woke, white leftists on her district - who suck.

    Second, it ignores the reality of their situations. Most members of Congress were pretty wealthy before they set foot on Capitol Hill, so the salary they receive from the taxpayer isn't a particularly big deal. However, the few who weren't wealthy when they got elected and actually need the salary could easily have a tough time, because they effectively have to maintain two residences, at least one of which will be in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country.

    Should we pay members enough to have two fancy houses (one in DC and another in their districts)? No. However, I wouldn't mind giving them what we give military personnel and overseas civilian personnel (like Mrs. Deez) which is a housing allowance or even actual housing. For example, I wouldn't have a problem with having an apartment complex meant to house members of Congress while they're in DC. Like military housing, it should be basic - not a dump but nothing fancy.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Monahorns

    Monahorns 1,000+ Posts

    Deez, what you are talking about and what AOC and members of Congress are calling for is 2 different things. Bernie, Mr. Anti-Bourgeoisie, has multiple vacation homes and a Ferrari or a Lamborghini.

    I am all for what you are talking about, the resources needed to function as a Congressman. That isn't what AOC is talking about threatening to use "dark money loopholes".
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    AOC and Sanders are a bunch of hypocritical hacks looking out for themselves. My only point here is that the pay and/or benefits should be enough for someone who isn't already a millionaire to make a respectable living. To me, that means providing some sort of housing option for the DC area.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Monahorns

    Monahorns 1,000+ Posts

    I agreed with that.
  13. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    There have been several Reps, mostly Repubs IIRC including one from north Texas who lived in their offices and got roundly criticzed.
    Many share apartments. Nothing wrong with that. If we subsidize them then what about their staff who make much less than they do but who are integral to a Rep?
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
  14. militaryhorn

    militaryhorn Cocky & Relaxed Like Dionysus

    Maybe tie any congressional pay raise to minimum wages, for example, if they receive a 5% raise then the minimum wage increases the same 5%.

    Since they hate raising the minimum wage, they might be more apt to not give themselves a raise.
  15. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Liquor Man

    I'd rather tie congressional pay raises to reductions in overall federal spending. Give the ******** some incentive to actually manage the budget wisely.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    They got criticized because it's against the law. The Capitol office buildings are federal property. Employees (including members of Congress) aren't supposed to live in them. They're supposed to work in them on government time.

    If Mrs. Deez set up a bed in her office, and we all slept there at night, crapped in the office toilets, and bathed in the sinks, people would have a problem with it. Trust me. Her chief doesn't want to see me walking down the hall in my boxer shorts when he shows up to work in the morning.

    Apartment sharing is fine if you're single. Most of these people have families. Again, the military doesn't do this. If a military family is stationed at a base, we don't cram some other dude and his wife into their housing unit.

    Different situation. Staff members don't have to maintain two residences. Members have a district staff and a D.C. staff. They do travel some but not enough to justify two residences. However, a member of Congress is constitutionally required to be an inhabitant of his state when elected. As a practical matter, that means he has to have a residence in his state. However, the amount of time he's in Washington, D.C. requires him to also have a residence in the D.C. area.
  17. huisache

    huisache 2,500+ Posts

    This commie was not elected by woke white leftists in her district. Look at the electorate in her district. Half are POC and another quarter are Asian. Only 25 per cent are white. She rolled an older white liberal by riding a demographic tide.

    You are going to see much more of this
  18. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    I think a housing allowance would be acceptable but would not be in favor of "gov't housing", The cost of providing and maintaining reasonable housing for 435 families would be out of sight.
  19. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    But if you look at how the constituencies voted, it wasn't the Hispanics who made the difference. It was the white people.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Really? The military does it for far more people than that. And housing allowances aren't cheap. Ours is about $50k per year (tax free), and that's in a cheaper market. A member of Congress in DC could easily see 50 percent more.
  21. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    And how much does that cost the DOD and us taxpayers?
    You know it would be cheaper for us to just give allowances versus maintaining them.

    I did not realize DOD civilians in Germany got so much.
    As an example a Brigadier General at Pentagon gets about 30K.
  22. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    My congressman (Brady) lives down the street from me. He shares an apartment with Scalise and one other I believe in DC. I see Brady all the time on the weekend at the cleaners, hardware store, etc.
  23. Vol Horn 4 Life

    Vol Horn 4 Life 5,000+ Posts

    Offer them a place in the projects so they can better understand the people they are pandering to.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Not likely. There's a reason why the military has base housing. It's cheaper for housing large numbers of people.

    I think a Brigadier General is an 0-7, so they get a little more than that. It's about $39K if he has dependents and works at the Pentagon. Nevertheless, overseas housing allowances are different and vary by location. They have to account for utility costs will are outrageous in Germany. I spend a good $7k per year in utilities even without AC.

    Also, I checked our allowance, and it has actually gone down. It was about $50K when we moved to Germany, but that was in Wiesbaden and when the Euro was about $1.35. It's more like $1.15 now, and our area is more rural. Our allowance is now about $43K.
  25. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Monahorns

    Monahorns 1,000+ Posts

    Of course there is one huge difference, even if once inside the experience is the same as German concentration camps or the US internment of Japanese, and that is the people in the US border detention centers made a willful choice to enter them. They could have chosen differently at any point up to arriving at the US border and could have chosen to not enter the centers and instead stayed on the Mexican side of the border or turned around and gone home.

    Leave it to a Communist to assume that all public-government relations are characterized by coercion and force.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Liquor Man

    True that. It's all the commies know.
  28. I35

    I35 2,500+ Posts

    “It’s not a concentration camp if it can be avoided by simply walking the other direction”.
    Chad Prather
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  29. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 1,000+ Posts

    Also, once inside the detention center, if it is not to their liking, they can leave anytime and return where they came from.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  30. horninchicago

    horninchicago 2,500+ Posts

    It seems the people being held in these places also won't die in gas chambers and be thrown into mass graves.

    But where is the outrage against these loons who make this journey knowing this can happen in the first place? Of course, it's evil Uncle Sam's fault, as usual. And it was his failed policies that ruined the countries these people are fleeing.

    • Agree Agree x 2

Share This Page