Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ocasio-Cortez 70% Tax Rate

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ocasio-Cortez 70% Tax Rate

    This young scrub of a woman pisses me off.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cri...es-11548104300

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cri...es-11548104300

    https://www.cato.org/publications/co...ates-wont-work

    https://www.cato.org/publications/co...rate-good-idea

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tez-70-percent

    It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that a 70% tax rate on those that make over $10M will translate by analogy to a 60% rate to those that make over $1M or 50% for those that make over $500k and so on.

    I would love to read a response from Steve that excoriates the plan, about how it is theft by force and so on.

    Don't get me started on Trump's limitations on mortgage interest deductions to $750k and, on limitations on SALT designed to fuck California and New York citizens. I'm still having to figure out if the 20% pass through deduction is useful or, if I should seriously consider reorganizing or, forming a parent C corporation in order to get the 21% tax rate going forward.

    Dan (thinks the commie / socialist woman is the epitome of what is wrong with the liberal democrat party)
    HFM

    As long as there exists people with religion and a belief in God, there will never be a Libertarian state.

  • #2
    She appeals strongly to people who can't do math and don't want to. The prevailing narrative is that she appeals to downtrodden poor people...that turns out to be untrue. The distressing thing is that it isn't disenfranchised poor people who elected her, and it's not just envy from the have-nots. Her election success was largely due to young well-off people who moved into her district via gentrification, said young rich people being so completely incapable of comprehending what a 70% tax rate means that they thought it a good idea.

    See: https://theintercept.com/2018/07/01/...establishment/

    This doesn't necessarily mean that America has taken a major socialist turn (though it might). It probably means that the Democratic party and their voters (especially the young ones) have been so totally offended by Donald Trump that they've swung hard to the left in opposition, similar to the Tea Party response to President Obama. The Tea Party was (and to some extent still is) disastrous to Republicans. It remains to be seen if the "Progressive Wing" of the Democratic party is equally destructive to the Democrats. So far the answer is yes, because "Progressive" candidates in contested districts have been losing winnable elections that mainstream Democrats likely would have won, especially in the Senate this last election.

    Pete (just wonders if the Democratic Party will come to their senses or find their own incarnation of Trump, either of which is possible)
    Last edited by Plezercruz; 01-23-2019, 05:40 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      My greatest fear is that democrats will run their equivalent of Trump but on the left.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Dan! I thought we lost you. People generally love the "Tax The Rich" idea, because of course, rich people don't deserve to be rich, right up until inflation and legislation makes them "The Rich."

        Jared (is in the top 5% of wage earners, and can afford rent and a bit of savings, but no possible way I can afford a house)
        "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." –Mark Twain

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by hfm View Post
          This young scrub of a woman pisses me off.

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cri...es-11548104300

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cri...es-11548104300

          https://www.cato.org/publications/co...ates-wont-work

          https://www.cato.org/publications/co...rate-good-idea

          https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tez-70-percent

          It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that a 70% tax rate on those that make over $10M will translate by analogy to a 60% rate to those that make over $1M or 50% for those that make over $500k and so on.

          I would love to read a response from Steve that excoriates the plan, about how it is theft by force and so on.

          Don't get me started on Trump's limitations on mortgage interest deductions to $750k and, on limitations on SALT designed to fuck California and New York citizens. I'm still having to figure out if the 20% pass through deduction is useful or, if I should seriously consider reorganizing or, forming a parent C corporation in order to get the 21% tax rate going forward.

          Dan (thinks the commie / socialist woman is the epitome of what is wrong with the liberal democrat party)
          She's not a commie/socialist. She's the female version of Trump. She is playing a role that appealed to enough voters in her district to get her elected.

          A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
          -Attributed to many but true regardless.
          "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

          Comment


          • #6
            Taxation by analogy? How does that work exactly?

            Congrats to anyone in the proposed 70% tax bracket. You’’re more likely to get struck by lightning than to see this tax formally passed, but I admit I would love to experience this fear too.
            "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by skooly View Post
              Taxation by analogy? How does that work exactly?

              Congrats to anyone in the proposed 70% tax bracket. You’’re more likely to get struck by lightning than to see this tax formally passed, but I admit I would love to experience this fear too.
              It works like this. Look at what you can find at the IRS now.
              • 35 percent, for incomes over $204,100 ($408,200 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 32 percent for incomes over $160,725 ($321,450 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 24 percent for incomes over $84,200 ($168,400 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 22 percent for incomes over $39,475 ($78,950 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 12 percent for incomes over $9,700 ($19,400 for married couples filing jointly).
              • The lowest rate is 10 percent for incomes of single individuals with incomes of $9,700 or less ($19,400 for married couples filing jointly).
              https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-pro...-tax-year-2019

              And, this is how I could see the text if Ocasio-Cortez has her way.
              • 70 percent, for incomes over $10,000,000 ($10,408,200 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 60 percent for incomes over $1,000,000 ($1,321,450 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 50 percent for incomes over $500,000 ($750,500 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 35 percent, for incomes over $204,100 ($408,200 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 32 percent for incomes over $160,725 ($321,450 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 24 percent for incomes over $84,200 ($168,400 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 22 percent for incomes over $39,475 ($78,950 for married couples filing jointly);
              • 12 percent for incomes over $9,700 ($19,400 for married couples filing jointly).
              • The lowest rate is 10 percent for incomes of single individuals with incomes of $9,700 or less ($19,400 for married couples filing jointly).

              Getting over how I used the word "analogy," do you think only those making $10M are going to be impacted? And, more importantly, how can anyone rationalize their government taking 70% of their earnings when we're not under some state of catastrophic situation such as a World War or dealing with the aftermath of a second great depression? Where do you draw the line? Are you comfortable with 100% rates when you hit some fixed number such as $10M?

              Dan (wonders at what point Jon considers something socialist or communist in nature)
              HFM

              As long as there exists people with religion and a belief in God, there will never be a Libertarian state.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks for explaining that. I didn't really understand what you meant by your terms or what you were basing it on. It's a touch speculative, but I now see where you are coming from. In any event, I consider her statements pie-in-the-sky in today's political climate -- like reparations or guaranteed income -- and thus not worthy of serious discussion. I am no expert in tax law. I don't know where you could draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable tax rates. Some of my libertarians friends here think any taxation, no matter how low, is still theft, yet we have to pay for government somehow. On the other hand, there were higher tax rates in the country in the 1950's and 60's, which were periods of tremendous prosperity, and we somehow thrived.
                "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You have to be stupid to think government, run by corporations or not, will spend your money better than you will. If you believe that, you deserved to be taxed to death.

                  Steve (laughs at people who believe in the adult version of Santa)
                  "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That top tax bracket would functionally be a tax on pro athletes only, because anyone else who makes $10M per year in wages can live wherever the hell they want, and could instantly leave the country if their tax rate doubled. Pro athletes don't have that option (though in some sports they might be better off in other countries financially).

                    Pete (points out that 35% of $10M is $3.5 million yearly, more than enough to cover relocation costs)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by skooly View Post
                      Thanks for explaining that. I didn't really understand what you meant by your terms or what you were basing it on. It's a touch speculative, but I now see where you are coming from. In any event, I consider her statements pie-in-the-sky in today's political climate -- like reparations or guaranteed income -- and thus not worthy of serious discussion. I am no expert in tax law. I don't know where you could draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable tax rates. Some of my libertarians friends here think any taxation, no matter how low, is still theft, yet we have to pay for government somehow. On the other hand, there were higher tax rates in the country in the 1950's and 60's, which were periods of tremendous prosperity, and we somehow thrived.
                      Revenue to the government went up when those tax rates were lowered, though.

                      Pete (supposes if you're so hellbent on punishing rich people that you're willing to pay money to do it, then this makes sense)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "From 1936 to 1980, the top rate never dipped below 70 percent. That changed with former President Ronald Reagan, who rode a wave of anti-tax backlash that has grown stronger with each year since, culminating when Congress passed Trump’s tax cut in 2017."

                        Look what's happened since the 1980's.

                        https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b06ba6d3bb1b9e
                        "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                          That top tax bracket would functionally be a tax on pro athletes only, because anyone else who makes $10M per year in wages can live wherever the hell they want, and could instantly leave the country if their tax rate doubled. Pro athletes don't have that option (though in some sports they might be better off in other countries financially).

                          Pete (points out that 35% of $10M is $3.5 million yearly, more than enough to cover relocation costs)
                          There are only an estimated 16,000 people making more than $10M per year, so the per capita impact on the population is actually extremely low.

                          My libertarian friends are fond of making the low-impact-on-the-population argument when it comes to assault weapons used in mass shootings... so it's fitting to use it with taxes too.
                          "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by skooly View Post
                            "From 1936 to 1980, the top rate never dipped below 70 percent. That changed with former President Ronald Reagan, who rode a wave of anti-tax backlash that has grown stronger with each year since, culminating when Congress passed Trump’s tax cut in 2017."

                            Look what's happened since the 1980's.

                            https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b06ba6d3bb1b9e
                            Looking at what happened since the 1980’s is on point. The graph in this link shows the fall of taxes since 1980: https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Fre...Tax-Rates.aspx

                            Now look at what happened to the Dow Jones since 1980: https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow...storical-chart

                            What was a dumping market from 1966 to 1980 turned around from around to a bottom of almost 2,000 before the tax changes at about 1980 to 25,000 we presently enjoy. The beneficial impact of the reduced taxes are incontrovertible when you look at the data.

                            Those of us here that have turned 50 to 55 probably only started working and earning after taxes were reduced and, we have only seen gainful employment post Reagan era tax cuts. We have never seen a tax rate up to 70% and never wish to do so.

                            Moreover, 16,000 people you claim is a low number of citizens impacted are the ones creating jobs. Do you honestly think a ding on them wont be a ding on everyone else?

                            The bottom line, just look at the charts and it’s clear as day that our economy and the market loves low taxes and, hates high taxes.

                            Dan (thinks unfairness or injustice for just a few doesn’t change the nature of that unfairness or injustice)
                            HFM

                            As long as there exists people with religion and a belief in God, there will never be a Libertarian state.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was reading this in skooly's article:

                              While some conservatives argue that raising taxes on multimillionaires’ income would lead them to work more and “create less,” there isn’t much evidence to support that idea. And several prestigious economists have written about and support her plan.
                              Even without clicking I knew that would be a link to Paul Krugman. That guy is a socialist shill.

                              Pete (thinks that Paul Krugman is the "climate change denier" of his profession)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X