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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: amazing

Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea are examples of what happens when you don't fight a war to win the war. WWII was the last example of a war the US fought in with the solitary intention of kicking other nations' asses into submission. You can waste money on war, or you can invest in annihilating an enemy while seeking avenues to make the war pay for itself and then some.


And that worked out real well with the treaty of Versailles leading directly to ww2. The reasons we made money with ww2 was 1) we were lending money and selling equipment, gas and such to all sides for most of the war and 2) after the war we were the only industrialized nation in the world. All the rest had been bombed back to the beginning.




posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
The reasons we made money with ww2 was 1) we were lending money and selling equipment, gas and such to all sides for most of the war and 2) after the war we were the only industrialized nation in the world. All the rest had been bombed back to the beginning.


and the reason that can't happen again is?



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If I understand Husdon correctly, when he talks about socialism, he is not talking about our current understanding of socialism. He was talking about financial socialism. About regulating the unscrupulous and greedy. Regulating them to pick up some of the tabs of society on their rent seeking and un earned income blasphemy. I don't believe he calls for our current understanding of socialism, it is something completely different that barely rhymes.

He has also studied a massive amount of history, all the way back to Babylonia and forward for many civilizations. He even goes into the fall of Rome when they created a financial sector that was close to today's 'free markets'. Once the parasites were free, they basically sucked the host dry.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Damn, that’s harsh. Your avatar should switch to thanos.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Once the parasites were free, they basically sucked the host dry.


That is true, but I don't think my definition of "parasite" is even remotely close to what he would call a "parasite."



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Damn, that’s harsh. Your avatar should switch to thanos.


Gladly, if I could have the Infinity Gauntlet for a moment or two.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Hola sir Burd. I very much value your straight thought and ability to enmesh in a subject to discover the truth.

At first listening to this speaker was painful. I realized it was painful because this speaker made sense in a weird way. The more I listened I realized the pain was from me, in questioning my base beliefs. I am still trying to understand and try to absorb the information from hudson's point of view.

He has given me some pieces of the overall puzzle that I didn't even know were missing. Maybe a new way or viewpoint in which to view this subject.

If you get a chance, maybe you could watch a little bit of Micheal Hudson's presentations. I would value your educated input on what he is trying to convey.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Cortez's party was born, and will always forever be.

The party of institutionalized discrimination.

Might and well be wearing white robes.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Do you think institutionalized discrimination could ever be used for the betterment of humanity?

Could it ever be used as a weapon against corruption? Could it be used against those preying on the weak, unintelligent or just content in the pursuit to enjoy life and not chase the mystical dragon of unparalleled wealth?

Should we even care? Or should we have full freedom at all costs, even if our current society and scale of wealth distribution was a direct result of this freedom. What happens if the corrupt will always rise to the top in this type of situation?

What if we have been lied to by people that have been playing this game a lot longer than we have?



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

So, I am understanding Hudson correctly here? When he talks about socialism, it is completely different from what we currently understand the term to mean? I never came across where he talks about no one being able to keep what they earn. I never came across where he talks about the forced provision of services such as health or retirement. I never came across his belief that the government should be all powerful and redistribute as it saw. That socialism was towards the people that prey on society and contribute nothing themselves, thus freeing ordinary people through static economics.

Have I missed something here? The closest I could find so far was his talk about public infrastructure. That when 'the people' or city/state improve a service like transportation, they would recoup the project's cost by charging an asset gains tax on the property that directly increased in value due to said improvement. The project would basically be self funded.

Sorry, I hope I didn't kill this thread.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: pexx421
The reasons we made money with ww2 was 1) we were lending money and selling equipment, gas and such to all sides for most of the war and 2) after the war we were the only industrialized nation in the world. All the rest had been bombed back to the beginning.


and the reason that can't happen again is?


Mainly because if we actually did what it took to actually win wars , with all the media coverage, the left would absolutely lose their freaking minds......

We have to abide by protocols the enemy doesnt give a rats ass about.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   
FAKE

NEWS



The Rich Never Actually Paid 70 Percent


www.aier.org...


Several Washington commentators kicked off the 115th Congress by rallying behind a newly proposed 70 percent top marginal income tax rate on the wealthiest earners. The 70 percent tax rate figures prominently in the financial equation behind the “Green New Deal” proposal championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. While a tax hike of this level is unlikely to clear the Republican-controlled Senate, it also portends a return to highly redistributive fiscal policy as a mainstay for the Democratic majority in the House.

The 70 percent rate would only apply to income earnings above an as-yet undetermined threshold, but it would nearly double the current top marginal rate of 37 percent. Supporters of this extreme hike have attempted to soften its radicalism by appealing to history.

Between 1936 and 1981, they note, the top marginal rate never dipped below 70 percent. In the decade after World War II, it even reached an all-time high of 90 percent on income earnings above $200,000 (or roughly $2 million in today’s dollars). Citing the prosperity of the mid-century United States, these progressive activists contend that our economy can absorb similar confiscatory rates today provided that they are only assessed on the wealthiest earners.

Vox’s Matt Yglesias notes that these rates existed under both Democratic and Republican presidents of the mid-century, while the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman cites the “35 years after World War II” as evidence that top marginal rates in excess of 70 percent were compatible with “the most successful period of economic growth in our history.”
Supposedly, these historical rates dampen the radical nature of the Green New Deal proposal. According to historian Kevin M. Kruse, no sensible person would accuse Dwight D. Eisenhower of socialism on account of the 92 percent top marginal rate in place during his presidency. Although the actual credit for this rate goes to his predecessor Harry Truman, Kruse links its continuation to the popular Republican president so as to suggest that modern objections to 70 percent rates from conservatives amount to unfounded alarmism.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Mainly because if we actually did what it took to actually win wars , with all the media coverage, the left would absolutely lose their freaking minds......


I'm not seeing much change between the current environment and that. Seems those horses were already let out of the barn, so there's no valid reason to worry about locking the door.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

OK DB, would you be willing to comment? I am getting radio silence here and I don't understand why. Is this a no go subject? No one cares? Socialists aren't down with this because this really isn't socialism? Free Market people aren't down because this has regulatory restrictions? There is no middle ground here?

Is there no way to prevent corruption? Should we even try to prevent it or should the smorgasbord be fully open forever?

Is this subject simply lame and people don't really care?
edit on 9-1-2019 by ClovenSky because: prevented=prevent



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky


The subject is deliberately convoluted and blurred because the end goal is to always increase taxes and never on responsible spending.

Republicans and democrats are both guilty of this.

The issue is in differentiating the statutory tax rate (i.e., the number that’s on the statute books) and the effective tax rate (i.e., the percentage of income that people actually pay once exemptions, deductions, and other tax-code incentives are accounted for).

From my source.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Mainly because if we actually did what it took to actually win wars , with all the media coverage, the left would absolutely lose their freaking minds......


I'm not seeing much change between the current environment and that. Seems those horses were already let out of the barn, so there's no valid reason to worry about locking the door.


Well im not sure if you served in this latest 17 years war we have been undergoing, but I know our greatest frustration on the battlefield on my tours was the fact that our hands were tied far too unreasonably........we werent allowed to do what we needed to do to actually win.

If we were we would have been there a year and been done with it.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal would cost more than the GDP of almost every country.

So let's play whit-if games and say she does tax the rich at 70%. Do you honestly think she can come up with $18 trillion+ per year just on that alone? Because that's a conservative (and I'm not talking ideology, I'm talking low-ball) estimate of what her plan would cost for one year in totality.

And that's after you tack it on to all the other spending!

So our normal budget which we cannot pay for + her $18trillion/year boondoggle which will kill the economy can all be paid for by soaking the rich? Do tell how that works and how the rich just happily keep getting soaked for 70% year after year without changing their behavior or moving to a new country.


Kill our economy..... really?

Did you know that in the 50s the highest tax bracket was 91%.

In addition, our economy was the best in the world. We had a thriving middle class and most historians consider this point in time to be the best in America’s history.

So no, a 70% tax rate is not going to kill our economy.

Also, it is a marginal tax rate, so only a certain portion of the wealthy will be taxed at 70%.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

What makes you think the weak and unintelligent are incapable of being corrupt? That's the problem. Corruption and gaming the system are not unique to those who are wealthy. Wealth is not the sole indicator of someone who knows how to cheat, nor is it an infallible indicator of someone who is only ahead because they are fundamentally dishonest and took from someone else, and when we discuss these ideas and the idea that some have too much, that's the premise we are all asked to automatically buy into.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: DBCowboy

OK DB, would you be willing to comment? I am getting radio silence here and I don't understand why. Is this a no go subject? No one cares? Socialists aren't down with this because this really isn't socialism? Free Market people aren't down because this has regulatory restrictions? There is no middle ground here?

Is there no way to prevent corruption? Should we even try to prevented it or should the smorgasbord be fully open forever?

Is this subject simply lame and people don't really care?


The only way to prevent corruption is to actually convict those in gov when they break the law, but its a house of cards, they refuse to ever do anything about the corruption or illegal activities becasue they are all tied together, and they know if one of them goes down the whole thing comes down.......

There is no justice in DC



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Did you also know that in the '50s the US had the only industrial base in the developed world thanks to WWII so outsourcing was literally not a thing? Did you also know that the regulatory regimes of today were also not a thing? Same with the tax structures.

We cannot make the simple assumption that because "it worked back then" that the world of the '50s is the same world of today.

And why is that the left only waxes nostalgic about the "good old days" when we refer to taxes? I thought the '50s were a horrific, backward time that we were best to forget about because we were all living in the dark ages or something.







 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join