AOC wants 70% tax on wealthy

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

  1. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Good point. The original Social Security (in the FDR era) was intended to provide minimum subsistence for 3-5 years, back when the life expectancy was less than 70. Now that life expectancy is in the 80s, the retirement age needs to be higher - the SS system simply can't support paying folks for 15-20 years of retirement.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Winebibber

    Not to mention the expansion of the program to include disability, spousal survivorship payments, etc. As with pretty much all government programs, it has grown and morphed in cancerous ways the original program was never envisioned. It is an excellent example of why the American people should be extremely wary about EVERY new social program the idiots in DC propose.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    My support for legalization (and general skepticism for the drug war) is somewhat libertarian, but it's more pragmatic. I just don't think it's very effective for the cost, and yes, the pursuit of the drug war has led to some bad jurisprudence on the criminal procedure side of things.

    As you might imagine, if the tax is generating more money than is necessary, I would cut the tax. I understand the argument that if you cut the tax, you weaken the deterrent effect of it. However, with a black market in place, I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of any deterrent from the tax. If you're wealthy and want weed, you'll pay the tax. If you're broke, you'll buy it illegally like you always have.

    I'm sure it hasn't increased if significant numbers of pot smokers are buying legally.

    Again, I would cut the tax.

    It's not sleazy because of the deficit or surplus angle. It's sleazy for ethical and good government reasons. Teacher pay raises are a pretty worthy cause. However, Texas has some of the highest rental car and hotel occupancy taxes in the country. The reason why is that the Legislature permits local governments to use that money to build sports arenas for billionaires who don't need the help. If the Dallas Cowboys, Dallas Mavericks, or Texas Rangers want a new stadium, they can build it themselves.

    Furthermore, think about those taxes. Who rents cars and hotel rooms? Mostly people from out of town who don't get to vote for the officials levying the tax. Do we like taxation without representation? I don't, and I especially don't like it just to throw easy money at the politically well-connected.
  4. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Washington has those same taxes. Seattle/King County rail travelers, 75%+ of which are corporate travelers so individuals aren't bearing the brunt directly.

    I'm honestly torn on these taxes. Seattle sports franchises (Seahawks and Mariners) have been a public/private partnership. Both franchises pitched in $100-$150m and agreed to cover any overages on ~$300M budgets. Given communities absolutely benefit from prefessional franchises that partnership seems appropriate.
  5. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    The extent to which they benefit (especially compared to the cost) is debatable. Here are two articles on the matter. One is from the '90s, but it's still pretty solid. Link 1. Link 2.

    I oppose them for two reasons. First, I don't like the corporate welfare and cronyism that goes with them. The Left was often unfair to George W. Bush, but one criticism that was fair was how he made his money. One of these stadium deals was a big factor. In 1989, he bought the Texas Rangers - kinda, sorta. The team sold for $89M, and Bush invested $500K. He was a pretty small investor.

    At the time, the Rangers played in an old but renovated minor league park. I went to many games there as a kid. It was pretty shabby. It had no charm or character at all - felt like watching a ballgame at Home Depot. Not surprisingly, there was talk of building a new stadium, but nothing was . Ayet approved. After the sale, Bush's group threatened to move the team, and the City of Arlington (the politicians and then the voters) coughed up the money to build a fancy-*** new stadium for them. (Of course it wasn't too fancy-***, since next year, they move into an even fancier and assier new stadium that the City of Arlington is bankrolling again.) The Bush group sold the team in 1998 to Tom Hicks (who was a sleazy bastard who literally bankrupted the team in 2010 - the same year they went to the World Series) for $250M. A huge factor in the team almost tripling in value in less than ten years was that stadium that the taxpayers largely financed. Bush made $14.9M on that. If you're wondering if the math is fuzzy on that, it is.

    Second, I don't like the taxation without representation. I think the American Revolutionaries were right to complain about that. The Bush deal was financed through a local sales tax hike, so at least the people spending the money were elected by those paying. More recent deals such as the American Airlines Center in Dallas used "tourist taxes" (rental car and hotel occupancy). That just nauseates me to no end. If you decide to fly to Dallas on business, I see no reason why you (or your company) should get hosed with exorbitant taxes levied by politicians you didn't choose to fund an arena you are unlikely to use and which largely makes Mark Cuban richer. It just smells dirty.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Great point, Sangre. That's one of the reasons I tend to oppose every proposed new government program. Once a new program is created, it requires a new government agency/office to administer it. And as all corporate employees know, the main goal of an agency is not to administer the program - the main goal is to assure its continued existence (and if possible, growth). It becomes somebody's empire. And the way to grow the empire is not by solving the problem is was (supposedly) created to solve - it's to show that the problem is much more complex than originally envisioned, and thus will require a much higher budget and more manpower to solve the (unsolvable) problem. The closest man has ever come to a perpetual motion machine is a government agency - once created, it assumes a life of its own, independent of the original intent.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Of course she is

    • poop poop x 1
  9. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Soros, is spending big money on her. This doll and a Netflix documentary.
  10. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    You would think that guy would hate Germany
    But no, he hates the country that saved Europe
    Makes sense
  11. nashhorn

    nashhorn 2,500+ Posts

    HHD that’s clever - and true. Don’t know if you were quoting another but excellent thought.
  12. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    ^Thanks Nashhorn. Not a quote, but a paraphrase, and I forget where I originally saw it. But the evidence shows it's accurate - more so than we would like.
  13. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    News flash!! AOC and the Squad endorse …. wait for it... Socialist Bernie Sanders. Big surprise.

    I guess it's over for Warren and Biden now.
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Cool story brah


  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    One of the weirder moments lately. Zuckerberg and AOC, sort of discussing free speech and democracy. Oh boy. And since she doesnt like some of his answers, she thinks its OK to assert he is a "white supremacist" by association.

    Last edited: Oct 26, 2019
  16. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Zuckerburg is going to be a conservative before too long.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Socialist Rep and former bartender from the Bronx, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), blames an entire racial group for “producing climate change”

    Can you guess which racial group she blames?

    • Funny Funny x 1
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
  18. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    Oh Oh ask me ask me
  19. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Maybe one of the causes of global warming is all the hot air coming from AOC.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    OK, I can see you need a hint

    So here it is -- it is not the biggest polluters in the world, the Chinese
  21. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    Darn :whiteflag:
    I thought I had it.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  22. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Conquistador should make public all the times she filled out a demographic questionnaire.

    She just might have identified herself as the cause of global warming.
  23. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    It's comical. White capitalists are blamed the most, but the biggest problem is Chinese socialists.

    And just consider the outrage if we singled out any other group for condemnation almost regardless of the issue.
  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    They are building coal burning plants right now, not just in China but all over the world
    Not a peep about it
  25. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    India and China are polluting the world at levels we can't imagine. We have reduced our pollution significantly and are improving all the time.
    The Snowflakes if they REALLY care should go to India and China and lie across streets and highways to protest.
  26. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    I personally don't care that China and India are building coal plants.

    Good for them. They are going to be better off than Northern California.
    • Hot Hot x 1
  27. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    I think I found your problem.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  28. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    For me, the most revealing story isn't anything about climate change or fossil fuels. It's the Iran nuclear issue. Iran always claimed that it wanted to set up nuclear facilities to supply its energy needs. Nobody said a damn thing about that. Why didn't they? We're shutting down nuclear power plants all over the Western world, and environmentalists routinely whine that nuclear power can't be an option in bringing down carbon emissions and that we have to piss away assloads of money on wind and solar power. I see tons of dumbasses over here with stickers on their cars that say, "Atomkraft? Nein, dank." ("Nuclear power? No, thanks.")

    So why don't these idiots go to the Iranians and say, "how dare you pursue nuclear power and put the earth at risk! Build some wind turbines!" Because the real agenda is hostility to the West and global wealth redistribution. The environmentalism is a means to nefarious ends. That doesn't mean you can't be a sincere environmentalist. You can be, but I don't think the mainstream environmentalist movements fit that category. If the West completely decarbonized today, tomorrow AOC and her ilk would come up with something else about capitalists, Christians, and white people to ***** about.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2019
  29. Run Pincher

    Run Pincher 1,000+ Posts

    They won't do that because it doesn't further their agenda. 90% of the world's pollution comes from India and Asia. No matter that the US does it isn't going to put a dent in the overall world pollution problem.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page