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: 7
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
This young lady is massively entertaining to me over the pond.

I have zero clue about her politics,just like she does.

But she is adorable and her funny facial expressions are so great,I think I would vote for anything she says.
Shes the most memeable government lass I have seen in a long while.

Maybe memeable is the wrong word?






posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

A 70% tax on the ultra rich doesn’t wipe out the middle class.


She wants to tax the wealthiest Americans. The wealthiest Americans include doctors, specialists, engineers, business owners, etc...

The claim always starts with "we will only tax the wealthiest..." Then when that is not enough "we need to tax the middle class too."

That's the same type of claim that socialists and communists made in Cuba, China, U.S.S.R., and one of the latest being Venezuela... We know exactly how this ends. Only people who lean to socialism or communism are stupid enough to want to "try this again."



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Silcone Synapse

She's a living meme.

It's proof that in America anyone can be anything they want whether they have a brain or not.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo


I don’t know how many times I have to repeat it (actually this will be my last), but nobody is turning down promotions because they enter a higher tax bracket.

Not a promotion, but I have turned down overtime. I turned down mandatory overtime before because of tax brackets.

At a job I used to have, there was a point where I would bring home x amount if I worked y number of hours. If I worked a half hour more, the take home amount would actually decrease. Once I found that, I simply explained to my boss at the time that I would not be working more than y hours and why. That included mandatory overtime. So sad, too bad; I do not work for free. I'll take that extra few hours and spend them sleeping before I do.

Your premise is unrealistic. Of course, no one would turn down a promotion that was simply a raise in salary because their taxes would go up. But we're (hopefully) not talking about that (I say hopefully because if we are, we're talking about overtaxing normal wage-earners at these ridiculous rates). Once a person passes a point in the corporate ladder, job a is not like job b. So if I were, let's use round numbers, making $3M a year doing job a, which required me to actually work maybe 50 hours a week, and I were offered a promotion making $4M a year working an average of 55 hours a week but with more headaches, I might consider that worth it; it's an extra million bucks a year. But now let's include taxes: If my take-home from the job I have is like $2M and the new job puts me in a higher tax bracket so I would only be making $2.5M after taxes... wait, I'm only really making 1/2 million extra for the extra time and headaches. No thank you!

Yeah, those numbers are probably blowing your mind right now... who in their right mind would turn down $500,000 a year?!? A lot of people would, if the money is superfluous (meaning they make a comfortable amount already) and they place high value on their time and peace of mind.

But even that's not the issue. The issue is this: If I have a small business and let's say I'm making that same $3M, bringing home $2M, with 20 employees, and I am thinking of expanding, what am I looking at? Well, each one of those 20 employees is a certain amount of headache. My expansion, let's say, involves me hiring 10 more employees and spending $10M. When it is done I am expecting to make $4M, but now after taxes I will only be bringing home $2.5M. You know, I already have a lot of stress and little time with my family, so screw that noise... we'll just stay with what we have. The extra money isn't worth it. So 10 people are now without a job, and they're paying zero in taxes (less, really, because they're probably getting government benefits).

That's what we are talking about. Your points are based on expected actions by those who would not even be directly affected by the taxation rates. As such, they are irrelevant. The effect of such a tax hike, in the example above, is that 10 less jobs will be created; the business owner will still make good money; $10M will not be spent stimulating the economy; and the government will lose out because they will collect no additional money and will still be saddled with providing assistance to 10 people. That's what you are advocating. The higher the proposed tax hike goes, the more likely it becomes that businesses simply will not expand.

I have seen these ideas come and go all my life. Every time they are tried in the slightest way, they fail. Every tax hike causes a slowdown in certain economic sectors. And yet, we have people still promoting the same tired old thinking, thinking they have come up with some new, exciting, never-before-thought-of solution to all the world's ills, all the while being as clueless as a blind cricket in a chicken pen.

TheRedneck




Honestly that’s a lot to digest and well written.

I will state that throughout the history of this country, when taxes rise the overall economy does not shrink (see any president in history). The economy doesn’t shrink due to tax cuts either. The economy operates pretty independent of the tax code on a macro level.

Your example of the business owner not expanding due to tax implications is a very real one, but it’s a micro example. On a macro level, some other business will take the work and take on the tax liability. Just because you won’t take the increase in business (and you very well may not), doesn’t mean I won’t. In fact, if that business (money) is there to be made SOMEBODY will take it. That’s the free market, supply will meet demand.

In your example of overtime equating to less take home pay, that could very well be the case on a micro level. Federal withholding is taxed at your highest bracket and not progressive. On a macro level, you’d get it all back in the form of a lower tax bill at the end of the year. There isn’t a situation in this country where making more money turns into taking home less overall. That’s not how the tax system works, and there’s no CPA that can come up with a situation where it would happen because it doesn’t exist. We have a progressive tax system.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Well said.

I keep thinking the world surely cannot get any more crazy,but then along comes the next level.
AOC is next level sheet.

Who needs brains?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

A 70% tax on the ultra rich doesn’t wipe out the middle class.


She wants to tax the wealthiest Americans. The wealthiest Americans include doctors, specialists, engineers, business owners, etc...

The claim always starts with "we will only tax the wealthiest..." Then when that is not enough "we need to tax the middle class too."

That's the same type of claim that socialists and communists made in Cuba, China, U.S.S.R., and one of the latest being Venezuela... We know exactly how this ends. Only people who lean to socialism or communism are stupid enough to want to "try this again."



No it doesn’t include those professions, and we know that because she qualified who her professed tax hike would have ramifications for.

Also, those countries went that way not because of their tax system. Venezuela has a flat income tax which is actually lower than the highest rates paid in this country.

Good news, an economic platform is not solely determined by a tax plan.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Silcone Synapse

Not AOC that's for sure.

Doubly so for the abject morons who voted for her.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo


Honestly that’s a lot to digest and well written.

Thank you.


I will state that throughout the history of this country, when taxes rise the overall economy does not shrink (see any president in history). The economy doesn’t shrink due to tax cuts either. The economy operates pretty independent of the tax code on a macro level.

I only need go back to 2017 (I almost said "last year," lol) to disprove that. The economy showed a dramatic increase in expansion due simply to Trump's election on the basis of more pro-business policies, which certainly included lower corporate tax rates.

While it is true that regulations also play a large part in those pro-business policies, regulations can themselves be seen as a sort of tax. If a business is required to spend money by government decree, it is a type of tax. Few people are familiar with this, in my experience, but that does not make it any less true. The cost of business versus the potential for profit is the major controlling mechanism for expansion/contraction, and all taxes increase the cost of business.


Your example of the business owner not expanding due to tax implications is a very real one, but it’s a micro example. On a macro level, some other business will take the work and take on the tax liability.

You are correct to a point. But that simply emphasizes my previous assertion. The more people who are willing to take business risks to expand, the more business on the macro level will expand. Each tax increase increases the cost of business and therefore has the potential to affect people on a micro level. There comes a point where the number of people willing to take risks for minimal gain becomes negligible. In short, the macro is simply a summation of the micro. Therefore, the macro will react in the same way as the majority of the micro.


In your example of overtime equating to less take home pay, that could very well be the case on a micro level.

Your assertion is correct: had I worked the overtime, I would have been reimbursed at tax time. However, that does nothing for me at the time. if I wish to work now for a future payoff, I expect the maximum future payoff possible. Anything else refutes the value of my time.

I am working on a business venture now (nothing huge; forget that noise because I do not want the headaches any more). That is future profit potential in exchange for present work. However, the profit margin is much higher than simply working for an hourly wage. That's the difference. If I work for an hourly wage, which necessarily means I trade profit for security and cash flow stability, I am not willing to wait an extended time for my reward. That negates my purpose in working for the hourly wage. I'll take that time and either enjoy it or start something else which will maximize my profit margin.

Anyone who would not, IMO, will never be successful enough to be affected by the tax proposals being discussed. Life don't work that way. The successful people understand concepts like the time value of money and profit margins versus risk. The unsuccessful people do not.

Many of them wind up in Congress, it seems. I suppose maybe that could be seen as a measure of success, too... just not the type I am speaking of.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   
What were taxes like under President Eisenhower? What state was the nation in under those rates?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Hmmm...

I should point out that I was just watching Sean Hannity ranting against the big mean socialism, and he showed a clip from 60 Minutes with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She was not advocating a 70% tax on the wealthy directly; she was using that as an example to explain the progressive income tax system we use.

Maybe she advocated it in another forum, but if that's all this is about... come on people! She was using an example! Wait until she actually says something stupid... it won't take long.

I actually thought she was well-spoken this time. I disagree with most of her policies, but at least she presented herself well.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

As I live and breath.


I'm going to go eat a whole crow now.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
100% tax on everyone would not pay for their green rights....



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Enjoy. I hear it tastes like chicken.

Make sure it's a Democratic crow.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

Enjoy. I hear it tastes like chicken.

Make sure it's a Democratic crow.

TheRedneck


Well crows are the most intelligent birds



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


Well crows are the most intelligent birds

Might take a while to find one, then. Good hunting.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer


Well crows are the most intelligent birds

Might take a while to find one, then. Good hunting.

TheRedneck



/golfclap



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
Because nobody is advocating that...

Are you scared of people who earn over $10M entering into a 70% tax bracket?




So this earner will be taxed at 70% for earnings over 10 million, what tax would be paid for the money earned up to that 10 million, is it still a progressive tax or a flat rate?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
Because nobody is advocating that...

Are you scared of people who earn over $10M entering into a 70% tax bracket?




So this earner will be taxed at 70% for earnings over 10 million, what tax would be paid for the money earned up to that 10 million, is it still a progressive tax or a flat rate?


I assume progressive, same as it is now.

Redneck pointed out that this is from the 60 minutes interview that airs Sunday and that the headlines are being misreported (or something like that).



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

OK cool, cheers...



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Thanks for the heads up. I just set 60 Minutes to record.

Cortez is a bit of a mystery to me. She has made some statements that were pure comedy gold, and she has had some good ideas. I guess that's why I keep entering these threads. I'm actually interested to see how she develops politically. I am assuming (yes, dangerous, I know) that she is simply sheltered and has never really looked at the larger world. If that is the case, then her learning curve thus far is impressive.

And not one word of that should be interpreted as me refusing to laugh at her when there's cause to. She has given so much cause in the past, I took the premise that she was actually supporting such insane taxation at face value. Crap, I just realized now I have to give Hanitty kudos for pointing out how wrong the premise might have been... oh, well...

Anyway, now I want to know exactly what she says.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join