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: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I suspect she is doing the job Hillary did.

....ensuring Trump wins




posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

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.


You’re basically arguing for people who value their time over money.

It’s the same reason many don’t work 2 jobs if they have enough to live comfortably. It’s not because of the tax, it’s because they value their time.

Bottom line, 70% tax above $10M wouldn’t affect ANYBODY on this board at all.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Why not just let the government take it all?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Why not just let the government take it all?


Who has even floated that idea?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Bottom line, 70% tax above $10M wouldn’t affect ANYBODY on this board at all.

That's the same justification used when the germans were hauling people off, "it wont affect me".

Real nice clark.

Why not just let them take it all, it doesn't affect you, right?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

No. She should kill herself. No more taxes.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Why not just let the government take it all?


Who has even floated that idea?


The Dems. That’s the definition of socialism which is the agenda they are pushing.

They are doing it slow though.

Like the frog in the pot. Slowly turning up the temperature of the water.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Bottom line, 70% tax above $10M wouldn’t affect ANYBODY on this board at all.

That's the same justification used when the germans were hauling people off, "it wont affect me".

Real nice clark.

Why not just let them take it all, it doesn't affect you, right?


Except it wasn’t.

Oh well...



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Why not just let the government take it all?


Who has even floated that idea?


The Dems. That’s the definition of socialism
which is the agenda they are pushing.

They are doing it slow though.

Like the frog in the pot. Slowly turning up the temperature of the water.


I must have missed that bill they introduced, care to reference it?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Well the top rate in the US was above 70% from 1935 to 1981. Post-war was a pretty big boom time.

bradfordtaxinstitute.com...

Not that I would want those rates...just sayin.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Why not just let the government take it all?


Who has even floated that idea?


The Dems. That’s the definition of socialism
which is the agenda they are pushing.

They are doing it slow though.

Like the frog in the pot. Slowly turning up the temperature of the water.


I must have missed that bill they introduced, care to reference it?


Her green bill is a good example. There is a whole thread on it recently.

Scary stuff.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Only a socialist thief believes that confiscating 1/2 or more of someone's income is moral.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Why not just let the government take it all?


Who has even floated that idea?


The Dems. That’s the definition of socialism
which is the agenda they are pushing.

They are doing it slow though.

Like the frog in the pot. Slowly turning up the temperature of the water.


I must have missed that bill they introduced, care to reference it?


Her green bill is a good example. There is a whole thread on it recently.

Scary stuff.


I must have just missed the section where the terms were “let the government take it all”. Obviously I didn’t read the thing in it’s entirety. Honest mistake.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Only a socialist thief believes that confiscating 1/2 or more of someone's income is moral.


At what percentage does taxation become socialistic? What level does it become capitalistic?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Why not just let the government take it all?


Who has even floated that idea?


The Dems. That’s the definition of socialism
which is the agenda they are pushing.

They are doing it slow though.

Like the frog in the pot. Slowly turning up the temperature of the water.


I must have missed that bill they introduced, care to reference it?



Her green bill is a good example. There is a whole thread on it recently.

Scary stuff.


I must have just missed the section where the terms were “let the government take it all”. Obviously I didn’t read the thing in it’s entirety. Honest mistake.


They are working up to it like frog in slowly heating pot of water. As I said that is the definition of socialism.

Here is Tim Pool talking to some socialists who make it clear if you really don’t understand.




posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Oh it definitely is.
Funny you choose to deny it now.
"Wouldn't affect anybody on this board at all".



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo




You’re basically arguing for people who value their time over money. It’s the same reason many don’t work 2 jobs if they have enough to live comfortably. It’s not because of the tax, it’s because they value their time. Bottom line, 70% tax above $10M wouldn’t affect ANYBODY on this board at all.


You don't know that.
I've known several multi millionaires, and you would have never in a million years would have guessed they were even above average wealth. One drove a rusty toyota and another wore his shoes until the soles fell off. I knew another very rich finance person that worked for big Pharma. He took a bag lunch to work every day, he dressed very low end, He paid for his second house in cash $800K! That doesn't matter though, what right is it to take away someone else's wealth.

Your thinking is also flawed that it wouldn't affect "regular" people like those on ATS. Of course it will, everything rolls downhill. Those wealthy people, who own businesses, rental units and everything else will start raising prices massively!



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Why not just let the government take it all?


Who has even floated that idea?


The Dems. That’s the definition of socialism
which is the agenda they are pushing.

They are doing it slow though.

Like the frog in the pot. Slowly turning up the temperature of the water.


I must have missed that bill they introduced, care to reference it?



Her green bill is a good example. There is a whole thread on it recently.

Scary stuff.


I must have just missed the section where the terms were “let the government take it all”. Obviously I didn’t read the thing in it’s entirety. Honest mistake.


They are working up to it like frog in slowly heating pot of water. As I said that is the definition of socialism.

Here is Tim Pool talking to some socialists who make it clear if you really don’t understand.



Whatever Tim Pool says...



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo




You’re basically arguing for people who value their time over money. It’s the same reason many don’t work 2 jobs if they have enough to live comfortably. It’s not because of the tax, it’s because they value their time. Bottom line, 70% tax above $10M wouldn’t affect ANYBODY on this board at all.


You don't know that.
I've known several multi millionaires, and you would have never in a million years would have guessed they were even above average wealth. One drove a rusty toyota and another wore his shoes until the soles fell off. I knew another very rich finance person that worked for big Pharma. He took a bag lunch to work every day, he dressed very low end, He paid for his second house in cash $800K! That doesn't matter though, what right is it to take away someone else's wealth.

Your thinking is also flawed that it wouldn't affect "regular" people like those on ATS. Of course it will, everything rolls downhill. Those wealthy people, who own businesses, rental units and everything else will start raising prices massively!


No, they wouldn’t raise prices.

But they’ll tell you that to keep the poor people poorer and the gap widening.

Oh well...



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
She was a bartender if I recall correctly.
Why doesn't she push for a cashless system so the government can get their fair share of that unreported revenue. You know she didn't turn in all that cash on her taxes.

And do ya suppose she paid income tax on the $3k suit in her photo shoot?



Hmmmm.....
I'll bet the IRS would be interested in her tax returns during that bartending stint. She might owe US money after the dust settles.




edit on 1/4/2019 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join