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 70 Percent Tax Hike On Wealthy Americans To Pay For The Green New Deal

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Honestly, it sounds like a pretty great idea. In fact, I'd go a step further and suggest 90% tax rate for the top 1% of 'earners.'

It's not a wild idea. We used to do it and America did not crumble. Our middle-class did not disappear.

We have progressive tax-brackets in America. If the top tax rate was 70% on people making more than $1 million/year, that doesn't mean they have to pay $700,000 in taxes if they make $1,000,001 in that year. That last dollar is taxed at 70%, not everything before it.

We should raise taxes, not just to pay for the Green New Deal, but to reduce the horrendous income inequality this country has.




posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: ChaoticOrder well it’s very easy to see who’s making money from interest, rent, or capital gains. Just tax that rather than labor. It’s not about morality, it’s about taxing people who are actually working vs taxing people who are sitting back while other people’s money comes to them.

Well then it is about morality, it's about heavily taxing sources of income deemed to be "easy money". Take for example a person who purchases houses as an investment, they rent out those houses and make an easy income from it, but why is that fundamentally any different from purchasing a business such as a quarry and making an income from that? Should the owner of the quarry be taxed at such high rates? What about a person who has taken a loan in order to purchase a house, and they want to rent it out for a period of time to help pay off the loan, under such high tax rates it would no longer be a very viable option.


And yes, speculation involves risk, but it also is often ruinous to the people creating the product they are speculating on. Speculation for future shares can ruin whole industries in other countries. Also, speculation is not normally done by people researching and making quick decisions. Almost exclusively now it’s done with programs using algorithms, automatically. The average stock share is only held now for less than a minute. So why should our livelihoods and economies be tied to a computer gambling system that has nothing to do with industry or production?

Well for one thing algorithms actually help stabilize the market by finding profit opportunities and lessening spreads. Think about this example, you want to start trading cryptocurrencies because volatility represents a potential for big profits, but it also means there's a lot of risk involved. You could try trading manually the way a lot of traders do, but perhaps you discover an effective algorithm which can make some trades for you, there's no reason not to use that algorithm so long as it can produce a profit for you. Unless you're trading ridiculously huge sums of money you aren't going to be responsible for any direction the market decides to take, it's not your burden if one particular coin falls in value while another rises, it's more often than not some bad news which causes the price to fall, and it's your job to stay on top of the news to predict when those drops and rises will occur.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421




much money are making unearned income.


wiki definition


Unearned income is an IRS term for income that is not obtained by participating in a business or trade (e.g., salaries and bonuses, wages, commissions and tips). It typically includes interest, dividends, pensions, social security, unemployment benefits, alimony and child support.


Note that dividends & interest is included. This would include Funds that return growth to peoples retirement accounts.
So you're saying "bugger that" they don't deserve to retire with money?



majority of their wealth comes from a scheme that takes what others earn, without creating an actual product.


Take Bezos as an example, initially he just provided a platform for trading goods without creating a "physical product".
He's now worth $160 billion. Where did the money that people spent on Amazon come from. Are they depriving other business of their disposable income? If they're not paying down debt and just free spending then they have themselves to blame.

Your outrage is better spent on the likes of Apple who manufacture a product for $10 in a 3rd world country with lax workers rights, slave working conditions, and then on sell that $10 product for $1000 even while avoiding taxation on their billions.




Initially these are the ONLY people who were supposed to be taxed by income tax, and it was around 90%


Educate yourself. Income tax was used to finance the profits of the Bankers and War machine producers

wiki


State and federal inheritance taxes began after 1900, while the states (but not the federal government) began collecting sales taxes in the 1930s. The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, permanently legalizing an income tax



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
It’s not about taxing easy money. It’s about taxing those incomes that add burden to the economy. These businesses are extractive. They don’t add value or a product and often the cost is boosted by artificial scarcity or market control by the very people investing. They specifically create bubbles to inflate the cost in order to raise their profit while pushing everyone else out of the housing market or what have you. It’s not about moral, it’s about the fact that these businesses, specifically, keep building bubbles bigger and bigger without stopping, eventually causing catastrophic busts that destroy economies, lives, and nations.

As for the retirement accounts, well the whole point of putting people into 401k et al was to artificially prop up the stock market gambling scheme without adding any productivity from the companies being funded. It’s been a scam from the beginning, and leads to people losing all their retirement each time there’s a bust. It happened in 08, as predicted, and will happen again likely next year. I’m sure whoever came up with that plan doesn’t care about people retiring.

Lastly bezos. Yes, he is “worth 160 billion”. But he doesn’t have that money. He has stocks, that increase due to speculation. It’s money from the Ponzi scheme that is the stock market. I’ll look into it more after my wife’s done demanding my attention.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky




Do we need to create regulations to protect the sheep from themselves and selling out our future where our kids and grandkids will need to pickup the bill?


Their future is already condemned. Once the SHTF all that will be left standing is a debt that will take 100 years to normalize. Or a war, but now war doesn't employ millions sitting at a bench putting together nuts & bolts like it did in the past. Its automated/robots.

How will countries regrow their industries and give gainful employment to their citizens?

All I see is a zombie/walking dead scenario where the commoners wander around the compounds of the rich waiting for some "swill" from the rich to forage from. Depressing stuff.


business.financialpost.com...


When it finally occurred to everyone that those houses and those stocks weren’t really worth what the debt-fueled market said they were, markets crashed, banks flirted with insolvency, and the economy sank into a deep global recession.

Now, 12 years later, it’s happening again. This time, however, it’s not households using cheap debt to take cash out of their overvalued homes. Rather, it is giant corporations using cheap debt – and a one-time tax windfall – to take cash from their balance sheets and send it to shareholders in the form of increased dividends and, in particular, stock buybacks. As before, the cash-outs are helping to drive debt – corporate debt – to record levels. As before, they are adding a short-term sugar high to an already booming economy.

And once again, they are diverting capital from productive long-term investment to further inflate a financial bubble – this one in corporate stocks and bonds – that, when it bursts, will send the economy into another recession.



"The $555 Trillion Derivatives Debt Implosion Is About to Begin"

www.zerohedge.com...



The BREXIT or British exit from the EU is this crisis’ Bear Stearns: an unexpected situation that Central Banks will go all out to sweep under the rug. Whether or not they will succeed remains to be seen.

But what has started cannot be undone. For seven years, the Central Banks have maintained the illusion that all is well. Meanwhile, global leverage has exploded to record highs, with the bond bubble now a staggering $100 trillion in size.

To top it off, over $10 trillion of this is sporting negative yields in nominal terms. Indeed, globally bond yields are at levels not seen since the BRONZE AGE.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Lastly, we are talking income tax. And if you educate yourself, income was originally defined as money made from....... speculation, interest, dividends, and rents. NOT LABOR.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky




Maybe look at the income stream from a standpoint of owning a factory, employing people and contributing to the local community versus just owning assets and charging rent for their use


So he owns a factory that employs and produce = good

He then buys and rents out a factory to his neighbour who employs and produces other products = bad?

Seriously I dont see how you can delineate one from the other.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Yea taxing the richest people that have the money to hire people to find ways to avoid it is going to work this time guys really... there wont be a sudden shift later to make up for all the money not there by screwing the middle class again guys we promise.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421




maybe crooked politicians


They dont have to be crooked, all they need do is the "status quo". If they attempt to tax the super rich they're soon deprived of "party donations". This is why usually the wealthy will contribute to both parties.




economic rent, or artificial scarcity. If you work for it, you should have it. But if you extract it from others then yes, a large percentage of it should be taxed.



defn: economic rent



the extra amount earned by a resource (e.g. land, capital, or labour) by virtue of its present use.


So if you're receiving board/lodgings from your son whilst he's trying to build a deposit to buy a house then you should be taxed?

This is not an easy topic - we should think through the implications before giving "simple" solutions.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

You've been suckered into believing that wages cause inflation. This is what standard Govt propaganda has drilled into everyones brains.

If this wasnt the case then the Govts wouldn't keep changing what constitutes a "basket of goods" when defining cost of living changes.

Inflation is determined by the money supply and rate of money movement. Inflation is used most effectively by Govts to pay back their debt to the people in tomorrows $'s.

Again assets bubbles are caused partly by increased population birth rates etc. The biggest contributer would be lax lending criteria. How else would the bankers and real estate agents make their billions? The banks with the help of Govts create these bubbles. Housing is such a large measure of GDP, the figures make Govts look good and they're able to keep up the scam.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

This is BIG NEWS all over today. You'd think this dimwit had the ability to raise the tax rate all by herself, LOL.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
In my opinion,that young woman isn't dealing with
a full deck!

Not the brightest crayon in the box , huh ?
But that goes for all Proglib candidates .
Nearly all



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
Honestly, it sounds like a pretty great idea. In fact, I'd go a step further and suggest 90% tax rate for the top 1% of 'earners.'

It's not a wild idea. We used to do it and America did not crumble. Our middle-class did not disappear.

We have progressive tax-brackets in America. If the top tax rate was 70% on people making more than $1 million/year, that doesn't mean they have to pay $700,000 in taxes if they make $1,000,001 in that year. That last dollar is taxed at 70%, not everything before it.

We should raise taxes, not just to pay for the Green New Deal, but to reduce the horrendous income inequality this country has.

I would like to see something that states the "we used to do it" other than you saying it
90% on the top earners ?
Link with the actual time period stated in the factual related article.
Also , the reason for the 90%
How long did the elevated taxes last ?
No youtube videos as that will be absolutely ignored

See , I already know
I just want others to see the ignorance in that statement
Denying ignorance
Why ?
That is my duty to ATS



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Here ya go


www.ntu.org...

It’s got too and low bracket for every year. From the 40’s to the 60’s the top bracket was taxed between 94-96%. It dropped over time, to 80% in the 80’s and since then it’s shot down.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 10:07 PM
link   
This thread went from 0 - 100% scary in no time flat. At first it was comical, and then I realized so many posters were serious, unless I missed the joke? The ignorance in this thread is insane, either that or I missed the joke. Satire maybe?

Edit: or no one in this thread other than gothmog (and one or two others but that was the last member I saw post) is out of their teen years yet, that’s gotta be it.
edit on 41012019 by Variable2027 because: I though of another snarky bit

edit on 41012019 by Variable2027 because: (no reason given)

edit on 41012019 by Variable2027 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




Well then it is about morality, it's about heavily taxing sources of income deemed to be "easy money". Take for example a person who purchases houses as an investment, they rent out those houses and make an easy income from it, but why is that fundamentally any different from purchasing a business such as a quarry and making an income from that? Should the owner of the quarry be taxed at such high rates? What about a person who has taken a loan in order to purchase a house, and they want to rent it out for a period of time to help pay off the loan, under such high tax rates it would no longer be a very viable option.


My point entirely. Where do you draw the line when making a moral judgment?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Oh I agree about the bubbles. But you cant deny the fact that retirement accounts are tied to the stockmarket.

What you're advocating in a round about way is for the whole system to be shaken up. Guess what - its going to happen anyway, the bubbles are really unsustainable. History will repeat itself. The rich will pick up the pieces for cents in the $.

Happens every cyclical bust.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Income tax used to pay for war debts, interest. Yes we are talking about income tax.



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

When Eisenhower was president from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. Eisenhower's first year in office it was 92%.
The GDP of the US rose 20% while he was in office.
The unemployment rate was consistently under 5%.
Median income rose 22% between 1953 and 1961.
Debt as a percentage of GDP dropped nearly 20%.

It wasn't until Kennedy was elected that the top marginal rate dropped to 70% where it stayed (in general) until Reagan took office and it dropped to 30%. The top marginal tax rate in 2018 is 37% which only affects single filers who make over $500,000 in taxable income.

I'm not sure what you want me to link to you that you won't immediately dismiss as 'liberal propaganda' or something.



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Gothmog

When Eisenhower was president from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. Eisenhower's first year in office it was 92%.
The GDP of the US rose 20% while he was in office.
The unemployment rate was consistently under 5%.
Median income rose 22% between 1953 and 1961.
Debt as a percentage of GDP dropped nearly 20%.

It wasn't until Kennedy was elected that the top marginal rate dropped to 70% where it stayed (in general) until Reagan took office and it dropped to 30%. The top marginal tax rate in 2018 is 37% which only affects single filers who make over $500,000 in taxable income.

I'm not sure what you want me to link to you that you won't immediately dismiss as 'liberal propaganda' or something.

Do you understand why ?







 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join