It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ocasio-Cortez suggests individual tax rates as high as 70%

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Everytime she opens her mouth and a thread is made from her malarky, it's a new opportunity to drop a fresh AOC meme.



Keep the news comin.




posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pianopraze
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

And those 5000 people are rich enough to easily change citizenship to another country and avoid her insane tax measures leaving her with no one but us lowly peons to fund her insanity.



...sigh....

You may sigh, let me ask you this: what keeps a rich person in a country?
Seriously.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.


Care to elaborate?



I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?


Using the old "progressive" rates she talked about, with all the deductions available, probably not close to the actual 70%.


Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.





Again, another poster who seems to conflate the top tax bracket one would fall into and the rate of income paid.

My statement, “the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy” seems to be standing.


I conflate nothing.

I understand the progressive tax brackets, your example failed to specify what the tax system was.

I think the majority of your posts shows you dont understand basic economics, and how people will stop working at the point 70 percent of the profit form their labor is to be given away to the government
edit on 4-1-2019 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.


Care to elaborate?



I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?


Using the old "progressive" rates she talked about, with all the deductions available, probably not close to the actual 70%.


Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.





Again, another poster who seems to conflate the top tax bracket one would fall into and the rate of income paid.

My statement, “the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy” seems to be standing.


I conflate nothing.

I understand the progressive tax brackets, your example failed to specify what the tax system was.

I think the majority of your posts shows you dont understand basic economics, and how people will stop working at the point 70 percent of the profit form their labor is to be given away to the government


Well, we’re talking about AOC and her tax plan....

What do you even mean by “what the tax system was”? Is that even a thing? We only have one.

El oh el. I think you’re over your head on this one man.

You do realize that NO MATTER WHAT A PERSON IS TAXED AT OR WHERE THE BRACKETS FALL, you will always make more money by making more money. This seems to be lost on many. Nobody will “stop making more to avoid the tax”.
edit on 4-1-2019 by GeechQuestInfo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
So the tippy tops are like the 1%? The tippy tops that be?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pianopraze
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

And those 5000 people are rich enough to easily change citizenship to another country and avoid her insane tax measures leaving her with no one but us lowly peons to fund her insanity.



...sigh....

You may sigh, let me ask you this: what keeps a rich person in a country?
Seriously.


Not the tax rate...



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
This lady is great but like a lot of progressives is stupid.

FIRST, take care of the benefits we have, like Obamacare, social security and other basic benefits the scum bag evil force in the earth, the Republican Party, has tried and failed to cut.

Then later when it’s established that you won’t be too radical you initiate these newer policies



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Simply put....I don't expect her to last. She will be removed somehow, especially when she goes after ultra wealthy. She is after all a stupid girl, only marginally attractive. A flash in the pan.
edit on 4-1-2019 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Socialism and Ocasio-Cortez just keep on giving this year



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

I don't expect the new liberals that won last year to last either.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.


Care to elaborate?



I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?


Using the old "progressive" rates she talked about, with all the deductions available, probably not close to the actual 70%.


Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.





Again, another poster who seems to conflate the top tax bracket one would fall into and the rate of income paid.

My statement, “the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy” seems to be standing.


I conflate nothing.

I understand the progressive tax brackets, your example failed to specify what the tax system was.

I think the majority of your posts shows you dont understand basic economics, and how people will stop working at the point 70 percent of the profit form their labor is to be given away to the government


Well, we’re talking about AOC and her tax plan....

What do you even mean by “what the tax system was”? Is that even a thing? We only have one.

El oh el. I think you’re over your head on this one man.

You do realize that NO MATTER WHAT A PERSON IS TAXED AT OR WHERE THE BRACKETS FALL, you will always make more money by making more money. This seems to be lost on many. Nobody will “stop making more to avoid the tax”.


Oh of we are talking casios tax plan, then by all means answer your question.

you make 20 million, and are in the 70% tax brakcet.

How much do you clear. be specific, sense you say we only have one tax system, so you must know the answer.
Yes, I was answering if all of your income was taxed at 70 percent; in understand that ion our current systenm that is not the way it works.

Yes, people will stop working if they get to a point where too much of their labor is taxed.

For example; I could make 100000 dollars at a reasonable tax rate, that maybe took me 6 months to earn.

Now the next six months I could chose to keep working and earn what would be another 100000 dollars, but 70 percent of thaat money would gop to the government.

Or I could chose to just live off of my current 100000 because the work is not worth it.

Many would chose the latter.

According to you, even at a 99 percent tax rate, you would still be making one penny on the dollar, so that would still be more money so you would still work.

I think you are over your head on this one.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Plotus


Simply put....I don't expect her to last. She will be removed somehow, especially when she goes after ultra wealthy. She is after all a stupid girl, only marginally attractive. A flash in the pan.


I agree with everything except for marginally attractive.

She's hot dude, tan and full figured with 5 extra doses of crazy.

That's my kind of chick right there, because I love repeating bad mistakes in my life.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.


Care to elaborate?



I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?


Using the old "progressive" rates she talked about, with all the deductions available, probably not close to the actual 70%.


Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.





Again, another poster who seems to conflate the top tax bracket one would fall into and the rate of income paid.

My statement, “the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy” seems to be standing.


Lol. Sure. Do you think people actually paid 91% tax rates? I just showed you what the top 1% in income in the 1950's paid. Please tell me what great insight you have that I am missing?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
a reply to: Plotus

I don't expect the new liberals that won last year to last either.


I'm saying.... she is playing a dangerous game.......



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   
When it gets really bad, people will be able to trade their guns and bullets to doctors for health care. Basic barter.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pianopraze
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

And those 5000 people are rich enough to easily change citizenship to another country and avoid her insane tax measures leaving her with no one but us lowly peons to fund her insanity.



...sigh....

You may sigh, let me ask you this: what keeps a rich person in a country?
Seriously.


Not the tax rate...


Funny, billionaire hedge fund managers are leaving the northeast in droves to Florida to avoid high state taxes... surely you don't think they won't pack up and move to Singapore or other tax friendly countries?

Fund Managers Ditching Wall Street to Florida




The Sunshine State’s most recent conquests are two of the founders of I Squared Capital, Sadek Wahba and Adil Rahmathulla, who are among executives relocating to Miami from New York, according to a person familiar with the moves....The former Morgan Stanley dealmakers, whose infrastructure firm will manage more than $12 billion in assets after its second fund closes later this year, stand to benefit tax-wise -- as would any other executives from the financial industry who make the move from New York or Connecticut. That’s because Florida doesn’t have a state income tax and its property taxes are relatively low, whereas the tri-state area has among the highest property taxes in the country.



Connecticut has a budget shortfall because ONE BILLIONAIRE said F YOU and move to Florida....

Two Billionaires Head to Florida



Thomas Peterffy, one of three Connecticut residents with an 11-figure net worth, has taken his wealth from Greenwich to Florida, a move that all by itself explains part of the state's budget shortfall.




And Peterffy isn't the only Greenwich billionaire who has left for sunnier — and oh, by the way, lower tax — environs. C. Dean Metropoulos, an investor and food industry executive who controls Hostess Brands, is also now a Palm Beach resident, according to Forbes.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.


Care to elaborate?



I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?


Using the old "progressive" rates she talked about, with all the deductions available, probably not close to the actual 70%.


Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.





Again, another poster who seems to conflate the top tax bracket one would fall into and the rate of income paid.

My statement, “the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy” seems to be standing.


I conflate nothing.

I understand the progressive tax brackets, your example failed to specify what the tax system was.

I think the majority of your posts shows you dont understand basic economics, and how people will stop working at the point 70 percent of the profit form their labor is to be given away to the government


Well, we’re talking about AOC and her tax plan....

What do you even mean by “what the tax system was”? Is that even a thing? We only have one.

El oh el. I think you’re over your head on this one man.

You do realize that NO MATTER WHAT A PERSON IS TAXED AT OR WHERE THE BRACKETS FALL, you will always make more money by making more money. This seems to be lost on many. Nobody will “stop making more to avoid the tax”.


Oh of we are talking casios tax plan, then by all means answer your question.

you make 20 million, and are in the 70% tax brakcet.

How much do you clear. be specific, sense you say we only have one tax system, so you must know the answer.
Yes, I was answering if all of your income was taxed at 70 percent; in understand that ion our current systenm that is not the way it works.

Yes, people will stop working if they get to a point where too much of their labor is taxed.

For example; I could make 100000 dollars at a reasonable tax rate, that maybe took me 6 months to earn.

Now the next six months I could chose to keep working and earn what would be another 100000 dollars, but 70 percent of thaat money would gop to the government.

Or I could chose to just live off of my current 100000 because the work is not worth it.

Many would chose the latter.

According to you, even at a 99 percent tax rate, you would still be making one penny on the dollar, so that would still be more money so you would still work.

I think you are over your head on this one.



You’re describing a scenario that has literally never occurred in history.

Nobody stops working due to tax. The working class is trying to make more money, not less.

If you were offered $11M salary or $10M salary, but only kept 30% of that $1M over $10M ($300,000), do you not take the higher pay? Nobody chooses to take the $10M salary to avoid the tax.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pianopraze
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

And those 5000 people are rich enough to easily change citizenship to another country and avoid her insane tax measures leaving her with no one but us lowly peons to fund her insanity.



...sigh....

You may sigh, let me ask you this: what keeps a rich person in a country?
Seriously.


Not the tax rate...


Funny, billionaire hedge fund managers are leaving the northeast in droves to Florida to avoid high state taxes... surely you don't think they won't pack up and move to Singapore or other tax friendly countries?

Fund Managers Ditching Wall Street to Florida




The Sunshine State’s most recent conquests are two of the founders of I Squared Capital, Sadek Wahba and Adil Rahmathulla, who are among executives relocating to Miami from New York, according to a person familiar with the moves....The former Morgan Stanley dealmakers, whose infrastructure firm will manage more than $12 billion in assets after its second fund closes later this year, stand to benefit tax-wise -- as would any other executives from the financial industry who make the move from New York or Connecticut. That’s because Florida doesn’t have a state income tax and its property taxes are relatively low, whereas the tri-state area has among the highest property taxes in the country.



Connecticut has a budget shortfall because ONE BILLIONAIRE said F YOU and move to Florida....

Two Billionaires Head to Florida



Thomas Peterffy, one of three Connecticut residents with an 11-figure net worth, has taken his wealth from Greenwich to Florida, a move that all by itself explains part of the state's budget shortfall.




And Peterffy isn't the only Greenwich billionaire who has left for sunnier — and oh, by the way, lower tax — environs. C. Dean Metropoulos, an investor and food industry executive who controls Hostess Brands, is also now a Palm Beach resident, according to Forbes.




That’s not leaving the country goof...

The US has 8 of the 10 richest companies. Why haven’t they moved? There are countries that would have these companies pay no business expense to relocate.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.


Care to elaborate?



I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?


Using the old "progressive" rates she talked about, with all the deductions available, probably not close to the actual 70%.


Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.





Again, another poster who seems to conflate the top tax bracket one would fall into and the rate of income paid.

My statement, “the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy” seems to be standing.


I conflate nothing.

I understand the progressive tax brackets, your example failed to specify what the tax system was.

I think the majority of your posts shows you dont understand basic economics, and how people will stop working at the point 70 percent of the profit form their labor is to be given away to the government


Well, we’re talking about AOC and her tax plan....

What do you even mean by “what the tax system was”? Is that even a thing? We only have one.

El oh el. I think you’re over your head on this one man.

You do realize that NO MATTER WHAT A PERSON IS TAXED AT OR WHERE THE BRACKETS FALL, you will always make more money by making more money. This seems to be lost on many. Nobody will “stop making more to avoid the tax”.


Oh of we are talking casios tax plan, then by all means answer your question.

you make 20 million, and are in the 70% tax brakcet.

How much do you clear. be specific, sense you say we only have one tax system, so you must know the answer.
Yes, I was answering if all of your income was taxed at 70 percent; in understand that ion our current systenm that is not the way it works.

Yes, people will stop working if they get to a point where too much of their labor is taxed.

For example; I could make 100000 dollars at a reasonable tax rate, that maybe took me 6 months to earn.

Now the next six months I could chose to keep working and earn what would be another 100000 dollars, but 70 percent of thaat money would gop to the government.

Or I could chose to just live off of my current 100000 because the work is not worth it.

Many would chose the latter.

According to you, even at a 99 percent tax rate, you would still be making one penny on the dollar, so that would still be more money so you would still work.

I think you are over your head on this one.



You’re describing a scenario that has literally never occurred in history.

Nobody stops working due to tax. The working class is trying to make more money, not less.

If you were offered $11M salary or $10M salary, but only kept 30% of that $1M over $10M ($300,000), do you not take the higher pay? Nobody chooses to take the $10M salary to avoid the tax.


This proves how little you understand about income.

It usually doesnt work like you are saying.

First, no business is going to give you an extra million that basically 99 percent of it would just go to the government. If you are worth the 11 million, you would go to an employer that would pay you around that and your money wouldnt be taxed at that high of a rate.

Secondly, many peopl;e earn wages, or salaries contingent on hours worked.

Once you were only taking home such a small portion of your labor in profits, you would merely stop working for that year.

Its why many people I personally know dont work as much overtime as they would; because the opvertime work is taxed at a higher rate and they just feel its not worth it.

And as a user above showed, people flee states with high tax rates all the time once they are wealthy enough to do so, proving that people would just move to countries without these ridiculous rates.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.


Care to elaborate?



I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?


Using the old "progressive" rates she talked about, with all the deductions available, probably not close to the actual 70%.


Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.





Again, another poster who seems to conflate the top tax bracket one would fall into and the rate of income paid.

My statement, “the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy” seems to be standing.


Lol. Sure. Do you think people actually paid 91% tax rates? I just showed you what the top 1% in income in the 1950's paid. Please tell me what great insight you have that I am missing?


Nobody pays the entirety of their salary based upon the highest rate that said salary falls in.

I’m going to fall in the 32% tax bracket this year, but will avaerage out around 21% of my salary paid in tax, because we have a progressive tax system.

How is this lost on so many???







 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join