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

America, meet the Pelosi House.

Articles of impeachment,
a move to abolish the electoral college,
comparisons of the president to Hitler,
a nonstarter vote on the shutdown,
profanity,
a proposal for a 70% tax on the "wealthy"

--all under 36 hours.

Wait till they get rolling!

twitter.com...

Forgive my ignorance on money matters but the Uber wealthy usually have little to no income per se as they have everything invested in a circular scheme that they then pull money from for "expenses". Like in the movie Getty. Let's not forget who writes tax laws as well ...and it ain't Peters Family Optical Outlet.

Who voted for this Moron? Literally? Anyone knows anyone who voted for her

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Forgive my ignorance on money matters but the Uber wealthy usually have little to no income per se as they have everything invested in a circular scheme that they then pull money from for "expenses". Like in the movie Getty. Let's not forget who writes tax laws as well ...and it ain't Peters Family Optical Outlet.

Everybody has a different definition of the uber wealthy.

For some that may be a doctor, for others that may be Les Moonves. For AOC, that threshold seemed to be $10M. There were approximately 18,000 people who filed 2017 returns in excess of $10M. Granted, we don’t know HOW that money was made (capital gains vs income), but that’s an irrelevant argument anyway because in order to have money to invest (and see the return of capital gains) you would have had to have an income (and been taxed on it) to begin with.

Nobody is talking about taxing your capital gains at a higher rate either. Also, those who have already built wealth would pretty much be insulated from this. This isn’t some radical idea, as we’ve had these high tax brackets in most people’s lifetimes.

The current tax code has helped wipe away the Middle Class since the Reagan Era and has literally been the single greatest form of wealth redistribution in human history (money going from the poor to the wealthy). Our current political environment, where coorparations who have no oversight buy politicians to do their bidding is a function of the lax tax code of the past 35 years that allowed the top tier businesses to litterally accumulate wealth at far greater levels above the populace than every before.

The next time you complain about Facebook and these tech giants controlling the discourse (and they do), and how nobody can compete with them to make a secondary platform (and they can’t, as Facebook will buy any threat) just remember that a lax tax code has been a driver in this imbalance.

Double

Double double

a reply to: FamCore


That's the whole democrat platform in a nutshell. Tax the bejeebers out of people with assets and give it to the bums, who in turn vote for them to get more free stuff. That way they keep their base in a perpetual cycle of poverty, dependent on the state from cradle to grave.

The rich don't pay taxes, they manage to escape most of it, something which the middle class can't really abuse of.

There's a lot we could do to stop the poor from getting poorer and to stop the uber rich to get out of anyone's league but taxing income is a shallow solution.

I always find it strange that elected people know so little about economics...

a reply to: theMediator

Sometimes, I think they know exactly what they're doing.

Then I go back to thinking they're idiots because it makes me feel better.

Occasional Cortez has a screw missing..
a reply to: FamCore

There's nothing ludicrous about a high Federal income tax rate. America has seen tax rates of over 90% in the past, as in Eisenhower’s day. It worked quite well for the American public. The middle class grew and the standard of living rose for a majority of people. It began to unravel with Reagan, and it's been downhill since. Yeah, the average family incomes has not fallen, but it has stagnated; and purchasing power has seriously degraded due to inflation over this period — leading to massive income inequality we face today. It makes perfect sense to structure tax rates at graduated levels. Income as this level is taxed x percent, income falling in the next bracket is taxed at y percent, etc. The extreme wealth we see today is ridiculous. It serves nobody well, even those who have all the money. A person can spend only so much regardless of how extravagant they wish to live. Earning more brings them no greater security or happiness. So, what's the point?

a reply to: tabularosa

People also conveniently forget that the rest of the world was recovering and rebuilding from WWII. We were the only country that emerged with our industrial base intact. There really was no global economy. These days, business and manufacturing and people have a bunch of different developed and developing nations to pick from that won't take 2/3 to 3/4 of their earned wealth from them and be more than happy to have them move on in.

a reply to: tabularosa

You forgot to mention all the tax write-offs that existed when that 90% rate was in effect.

Figure it out and see the idiocy 😁

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tabularosa

People also conveniently forget that the rest of the world was recovering and rebuilding from WWII. We were the only country that emerged with our industrial base intact. There really was no global economy. These days, business and manufacturing and people have a bunch of different developed and developing nations to pick from that won't take 2/3 to 3/4 of their earned wealth from them and be more than happy to have them move on in.

Nobody would move.

There are plenty of countries where the tax burden is 0%, so why haven’t these companies moved there? Our biggest companies in the country are expanding facilities in the highest COL area in our country. Why not move out to Morgantown, WV and save the company billions?

Companies will be where the workers want to be, regardless of tax burdens. If Apple wants to move from Cupertino to Luanda, so be it. Another company will fill Apple’s gaping void they left in the market.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Then why do companies negotiate for tax breaks to decide where to put up a new plant? That's common practice for large companies that promise to bring in jobs to support the local economies. I haven't heard of a single large company that didn't do so in the last several decades.

Of course, that doesn't affect Federal taxes. So in order to avoid them, a company has to move out of the country. That has its own logistics problems: are the workers educated enough? Are there enough workers? Are there any other costs of doing business there? What does that do to shipping costs? Everything comes into play; one cannot isolate taxes and say the number of companies moving is a direct correlation to taxation. Taxes are only one thing they have to look at, but they are a big thing.

Ketsuko is right: we are now, since Reagan, in a global economy. I can order from China any time I want; someone else calculates the exchange rates, the money transfer is seamless, and shipping is no big deal any more. That's because China grows their economy and their infrastructure to support it. A better economy and infrastructure makes China more appealing to US companies. The extra considerations become less and less pronounced as we move further into a global economy, making it easier to move companies.

When was the last time you saw a TV made in America? They're not... no amount of money will buy an American-made TV. How about computer chips? They're not made in Silicon Valley, contrary to popular belief... they're developed there. Then the masks and schematics are sent to Chinese factories where the raw materials needed are more abundant. Silicon cells are the same way... China (along with the surrounding Asian countries) holds almost all of the rare earth metals needed for them; other countries can only get enough to do research. All of these companies used to exist in the United States. I actually still own one of the last Curtis Mathis TV sets made in the US. I used to buy chips from Motorola made in American factories. Solyndra could not compete because China will not sell their rare earth metals in raw bulk; it was doomed form the start.

They all left because the taxation was lower, and because the obstacles to move were relaxed.

Mom and Pop places won't move... can't afford to move... they'll just be forced out of business because it costs them so much more than it does the multi-nationals to do business.

Any time you, or anyone else, advocates these massive tax hikes, it is nothing less than support for the same companies that are causing the economic problems you also complain about. Every agreement to tax the rich is an agreement that multi-national corporations should not be forced to compete with smaller local businesses.

TheRedneck

LIBERAL SNOWFLAKES ARE INCITING VIOLENCE ONCE AGAIN

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez followers threaten Congressman Steve Scalise this evening.

"Sniper His Azz!" - www.foxnews.com... hooting

a reply to: carewemust

The party of peace... as in "rest in..."

Fixed your link... BBCode has a problem with long addresses.

TheRedneck

I hope she sticks with her agenda. It's the best way to get a Republican elected to the Presidency or any other office. It's fortunate that she doesn't know history or economics. The Republicans should use it to their advantage.

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: FamCore

"She is using very technical terms such as tippy top" at least those are real words. Biggly!

You do realize that the more you used a word the more likely it is to become accepted as a word thus making your point... well pointless. You are in effect choosing to legitimize that word by constant use. Well done!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Then why do companies negotiate for tax breaks to decide where to put up a new plant? That's common practice for large companies that promise to bring in jobs to support the local economies. I haven't heard of a single large company that didn't do so in the last several decades.

Of course, that doesn't affect Federal taxes. So in order to avoid them, a company has to move out of the country. That has its own logistics problems: are the workers educated enough? Are there enough workers? Are there any other costs of doing business there? What does that do to shipping costs? Everything comes into play; one cannot isolate taxes and say the number of companies moving is a direct correlation to taxation. Taxes are only one thing they have to look at, but they are a big thing.

Ketsuko is right: we are now, since Reagan, in a global economy. I can order from China any time I want; someone else calculates the exchange rates, the money transfer is seamless, and shipping is no big deal any more. That's because China grows their economy and their infrastructure to support it. A better economy and infrastructure makes China more appealing to US companies. The extra considerations become less and less pronounced as we move further into a global economy, making it easier to move companies.

When was the last time you saw a TV made in America? They're not... no amount of money will buy an American-made TV. How about computer chips? They're not made in Silicon Valley, contrary to popular belief... they're developed there. Then the masks and schematics are sent to Chinese factories where the raw materials needed are more abundant. Silicon cells are the same way... China (along with the surrounding Asian countries) holds almost all of the rare earth metals needed for them; other countries can only get enough to do research. All of these companies used to exist in the United States. I actually still own one of the last Curtis Mathis TV sets made in the US. I used to buy chips from Motorola made in American factories. Solyndra could not compete because China will not sell their rare earth metals in raw bulk; it was doomed form the start.

They all left because the taxation was lower, and because the obstacles to move were relaxed.

Mom and Pop places won't move... can't afford to move... they'll just be forced out of business because it costs them so much more than it does the multi-nationals to do business.

Any time you, or anyone else, advocates these massive tax hikes, it is nothing less than support for the same companies that are causing the economic problems you also complain about. Every agreement to tax the rich is an agreement that multi-national corporations should not be forced to compete with smaller local businesses.

TheRedneck

Again, we’ve now started intermingling corporate tax with personal tax.

Nobody is leaving this country because of high personal income taxes.

Tangent: You mentioned corporate welfare and companies moving to expanding to areas whereas they receive tax breaks. This is true that companies receive this welfare from local officials, but it’s often a futile exercise. Amazon HQ2 did not move to where they received the highest offers. In fact my city, Austin, was a finalist to get HQ2 and didn’t even make a whole hearted pitch to get HQ2. Companies will go where they want to go. If you give them tax incentives then you’re local officials are idiots because you’re bidding against yourself.

In the end, Amazon didn’t end up going with a city who had:

-Low cost of living
-Highest tax incentives
-Low state/local tax

They went where they wanted to go, and played local governments to get bigger incentives than they ever needed. It’s not like if all these major hubs decided NOT to offer any incentives HQ2 wouldn’t exist. It didn’t matter how much money Morgantown, WV threw at Amazon, the company would have never relocated there.

There’s a reason all these companies are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest and not in middle America and it’s obviously not for tax purposes.