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.

 

Tax the rich? Statistics show Alexandria Cortez May be right

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



She does have a degree in Economics.


If she did. She wouldn't be an avowed socialist.

Maybe she should get a refund.


Quite a lot of economics graduates and professors are socialist. Economics, even relatively main stream economics,is a broad kirk.




posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ScepticScot

It doesnt.


Yeah they give them out to anyone...

www.seattletimes.com...



Exactly.

Now give her 30 years experience in something and get back to me.
So far all shes done is open beer bottles and shaken martinis..


Did you say 30 years experience? LOL All that gives you, in political terms are people like Mitch mcConnell, Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Mike Huckabee etc. It appears to make them dumber and less wise.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Why do we need to tax any of the nation's citizens at 70%?

The reason she proposed the rate was in conjunction with her plan, but if we are discussing it absent of her plan. Why are you doing it?

Because if all you want is to take away someone else's money because they're rich ... well, that just makes you all look bitter about it.
edit on 9-1-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ScepticScot

It doesnt.


Yeah they give them out to anyone...

www.seattletimes.com...



Exactly.

Now give her 30 years experience in something and get back to me.
So far all shes done is open beer bottles and shaken martinis..


And she wears really expensive clothes.

For the little people her party!



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ScepticScot

It doesnt.


Yeah they give them out to anyone...

www.seattletimes.com...



Exactly.

Now give her 30 years experience in something and get back to me.
So far all shes done is open beer bottles and shaken martinis..


Did you say 30 years experience? LOL All that gives you, in political terms are people like Mitch mcConnell, Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Mike Huckabee etc. It appears to make them dumber and less wise.



Yes 30 years.
Now you have something to judge.
Good or bad



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96



She does have a degree in Economics.


If she did. She wouldn't be an avowed socialist.

Maybe she should get a refund.


Quite a lot of economics graduates and professors are socialist. Economics, even relatively main stream economics,is a broad kirk.


So effing what ?

Doesn't make them right.

Makes them stupid as hell for NOT even understanding the SNIP they want.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
Well that’s a good discussion actually. And to do that we need to go into earned income vs unearned income. It has to do with how all the recent growth in our economy is subtractive ie interest, capital gains, increased rents, speculation and monopoly exploitation, and how these things actually shrink the real economy rather than grow it, even though they are counted towards gdp. We could talk about people actually earning income vs people taking the income that others create ala the new feudalism. Or you can just watch Hudson explain better than me the junk economics that our country and economists currently go by.



When you ask “why should we take the money people earn?!” The answer is here. Parasites don’t earn money. They manipulate their money so they can then take the money other people earn. It’s about where the massively wealthy actually get their money and why and how it negatively impacts the working class, the economy, and the future.


edit on 9-1-2019 by pexx421 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Why do we need to tax any of the nation's citizens at 70%?

The reason she proposed the rate was in conjunction with her plan, but if we are discussing it absent of her plan. Why are you doing it?

Because if all you want is to take away someone else's money because they're rich ... well, that just makes you all look bitter about it.


A big part of it is, are the Rich and corporations paying their fair share or at a percentage at least as high as mine. In most cases the answer is no. I'd be fine with a flat tax, that's way lower, but that would mean shrinking the government and our military drastically. Apparently no politician wants to do that. I had hoped that Trump would be trying to shrink our government but so far that hasn't happened.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ScepticScot

It doesnt.


Yeah they give them out to anyone...

www.seattletimes.com...



Exactly.

Now give her 30 years experience in something and get back to me.
So far all shes done is open beer bottles and shaken martinis..


Did you say 30 years experience? LOL All that gives you, in political terms are people like Mitch mcConnell, Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Mike Huckabee etc. It appears to make them dumber and less wise.



Yes 30 years.
Now you have something to judge.
Good or bad


Looking at it that way, we need term limits and let all the incoming freshman have all the power, they literally can't screw our country up any more than that morons we currently have in there have been doing. I never vote for incumbents. Don't blame me. lol



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421




It has to do with how all the recent growth in our economy is subtractive ie interest, capital gains, increased rents, speculation and monopoly exploitation, and how these things actually shrink the real economy rather than grow it, even though they are counted towards gdp.


Bullsnip.

Making people pay more taxes to the STATE shrinks the economy.

Creating big arse programs like medicare,medicaid,free homes,free education, FREE healthcare ALL shrink the economy.

Because the money is taken from us and given to whoever dumb arse people like Cortez 'think' is more worthy.
edit on 9-1-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Good gut reaction. Watch the video and then tell me bullsnip.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: pexx421




It has to do with how all the recent growth in our economy is subtractive ie interest, capital gains, increased rents, speculation and monopoly exploitation, and how these things actually shrink the real economy rather than grow it, even though they are counted towards gdp.


Bullsnip.

Making people pay more taxes to the STATE shrinks the economy.

Creating big arse programs like medicare,medicaid,free homes,free education, FREE healthcare ALL shrink the economy.

Because the money is taken from us and given to whoever dumb arse people like Cortez 'think' is more worthy.


Every politician and president do that. I don't think anyone's ever even tried to shrink the government since Reagan and that was only a half effort, especially since he was growing the military due to the escalating cold war.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

I would love term limits, 8 to 10 years is enough.
But I will say that I want my politicians and doctors to have some experience before dealing with my life.
Same with my airline pilots.
Years of experience,



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:41 PM
link   
What worked in post WW2 economic environment will not work in post 2018 economic environment.

This is something almost every economist agrees on, regardless of their political leanings. Time has made the world is a very different place, and will require a different solution.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

So, you put me in the category of rich?

We have a retirement account. Any money we earn off of that account is capital gains. We also have some CDs. Any interest off of those is also capital gains.

Any people in this country who are saving and preparing for their retirement in any way other than Social Security are in your category of unfairly wealthy.

I understand you aren't thinking of them, but Congresscritters are when they pitch these ideas to you. They know that far more than any grossly wealthy people like Warren Buffet, they know that middle class savings in such accounts represents the lions share of money they can't touch, and any such tax measures will tap that money.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Yeah, instead of just bashing the new green deal, let's focus on the thread. Does it make economic sense? Is it right?

Really hard to find any truth these days, everything has a spin, every news source has an agenda.

Most of you just parrot what your news source tells you to say. "If it's an idea from someone on the left it has to be wrong" "If trump said it, it has to be wrong."

We used to dig deeper for the actual truth and dare I say, deny ignorance.


I cant find the truth about this anywhere, I guess because its too complicated. Its complicated because its couched on taxing the wealthy, but from what I have seen, its an income tax. The wealthiest dont have any "income", they have capital gains and distributions of unearned income.

So..........who would pay the top bracket? Someone actually earning an income in excess of what, one million dollars? I guess the CEO of ExxonMobil? But dont most of their pay packages be made up primarily of stock options and such?



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: amazing

I would love term limits, 8 to 10 years is enough.
But I will say that I want my politicians and doctors to have some experience before dealing with my life.
Same with my airline pilots.
Years of experience,


Not politicians though. and 8-10 years is way too long. Should be 4 years Max. Remember that there are aids and admins and everything you need to know on how to govern. You go to orientations and all of that. The only think you need to do to be a good politician is to try to do the right thing and listen to people smarter than you.

When you leave a politician in office for more than 4 years, they become complacent and part of the problem. They don't become magically wiser or more intelligent, they become more corrupt, more egotistical, and all they focus on is getting re elected and making money.

New politicans have that idealism of wanting to do the right thing for the country. You can list any politican. Take Ted Cruz, who was known for being very libertarian, now he's just a crooked Lawyer like the rest of em. Is it because we're just now finding out, or that he changed. My money is on that he changed.

Politicians don't need any experience. For proof I offer myself. I was elected to a school board. Knew nothing about education or how to govern or run meetings or Roberts rules of order or any of that. The admins always helped me out. The only thing I had to do was read the agenda, study up on anything I didn't understand and make decisions based on my moral compass. What could we afford to cut during a budget crisis? What's our position when bargaining with the teacher's union? Which new text books do we approve? Do we grant any exeptions to policy for this parent?

I found out quickly, that the more "experienced" members/ politicians weren't any smarter or wiser than me, they had only become less adaptable, less likely to compromise, more unwilling to change if given more information, less compassionate, more likely to cover up an issue to avoid embarressment. They had become politicians. They were definitely no wiser though. Experience hadn't had any positive effects on them.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: amazing
Yeah, instead of just bashing the new green deal, let's focus on the thread. Does it make economic sense? Is it right?

Really hard to find any truth these days, everything has a spin, every news source has an agenda.

Most of you just parrot what your news source tells you to say. "If it's an idea from someone on the left it has to be wrong" "If trump said it, it has to be wrong."

We used to dig deeper for the actual truth and dare I say, deny ignorance.


I cant find the truth about this anywhere, I guess because its too complicated. Its complicated because its couched on taxing the wealthy, but from what I have seen, its an income tax. The wealthiest dont have any "income", they have capital gains and distributions of unearned income.

So..........who would pay the top bracket? Someone actually earning an income in excess of what, one million dollars? I guess the CEO of ExxonMobil? But dont most of their pay packages be made up primarily of stock options and such?


Yeah, and again most news sources are biased, so all liberal news sources will give this a positive spin and all conservative news sources will give it a negative spin, without ever giving us an unbiased, in depth analysis.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
If the govt taxed everyone to the limit and quadrupled tax revenue, they'd blow it as fast as they raked it in, per the norm.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Well, based on the chart in the article, it strikes me that the secret to a vibrant US economy is another World War. Taxes remained high for decades after WWII, but the massive GDP growth only continued in the waning years of the war and the few years afterward. Maybe we should remove Russia from the Ukraine or drop a couple of thermonuclear warheads on Tehran and toe the GDP in the butt a bit based on the charts, yes?







 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join