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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
ketsuko, I suspect you are right. grrrrrrrrr

thank you everyone for your time and responses.

Time to think and reevaluate again.


The topic you're pondering is what's called a super wicked problem, which is a subset of a wicked problem (link is an interesting page on wicked problems).

There is no solution to a wicked problem. HOWEVER, you can change its nature in multiple directions (think of the "Butterfly Effect" ; the legendary 'wind from the wing of a butterfly causes a tornado two weeks later)

Then ask yourself the question: how do you want the problem to change and what can be done to it to make that change?




posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   
They pay 40% of the taxes. They claim 90% of the profit. a reply to: Edumakated



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

Retirement account earnings are only capital gains until you take the money out of the account. Then everything you take is taxed at ordinary income.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960
No one wants to target people making a product or service, selling it and making a profit. We’re talking about capital gains, which the average joe May have a minuscule amount of but the wealthy elite have all their money from. This is extractive and it’s largely theft. If you hadn’t heard, this is the new American dream. Buying a company, plundering the pensions, firing workers then claiming bankruptcy, that’s theft. If you’re a oil Corp in Louisiana and you bribe the board to charge no taxes on 80% of your property as 90% of the corporations there have done the last few decades, that’s theft. If you bribe congress to place legislation you write to support your profits or keep out competition like pretty much every pharmaceutical, insurance, telecommunications, or internet/phone service does, that’s theft. If you bribe a city to not charge taxes if you move your business headquarters there ala Amazon, that’s theft. If you bribe congress to give you trillions to save you from your fraudulent business models as all the banks did, that’s theft. The new American dream is to find a way to exploit the workers so you can sit back and get rich off everyone’s work.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
The Bill of Rights says Cortez is WRONG.

Read it some time.

Rich people aren't three fifths of a person, and THEY ARE entitled to their GOD GIVEN 14th amendment right.
Best answer ever!!!!
And also Cortez is using typical Marxist peogressive taxation policy only her plan is on steroids. Totally unsustainable plan.
edit on 10-1-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: fredrodgers1960
No one wants to target people making a product or service, selling it and making a profit. We’re talking about capital gains, which the average joe May have a minuscule amount of but the wealthy elite have all their money from. This is extractive and it’s largely theft. If you hadn’t heard, this is the new American dream. Buying a company, plundering the pensions, firing workers then claiming bankruptcy, that’s theft. If you’re a oil Corp in Louisiana and you bribe the board to charge no taxes on 80% of your property as 90% of the corporations there have done the last few decades, that’s theft. If you bribe congress to place legislation you write to support your profits or keep out competition like pretty much every pharmaceutical, insurance, telecommunications, or internet/phone service does, that’s theft. If you bribe a city to not charge taxes if you move your business headquarters there ala Amazon, that’s theft. If you bribe congress to give you trillions to save you from your fraudulent business models as all the banks did, that’s theft. The new American dream is to find a way to exploit the workers so you can sit back and get rich off everyone’s work.
No ... Capital Gains tax is abusive and predatory and just another method of taxation to punish anyone who has made money and invests it. It is damaging to both companies and individuals. Taxation by the elites has gotten way out of hand.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Thank you very much for those links. Wicked/Super Wicked problem: " a wicked problem relates to the problem itself, the items that define a super wicked problem relate to the agent trying to solve it."

So the wicked is the issue itself and super wicked is trying to come up with a plan to address the underlying issue. Are they trying to suggest that in solving the problem, a greater problem is created?

publicsphereproject.org...


Rittel saw that this hope was doomed, because the problem situations in view could not be defined in agreed, unchanging ways. These problems are intrinsically ill-defined, and attempts to define them are already actions which reshape the problem and commit the analyst to a course of problem-solving which omits legitimate alternatives —and there is no way of escaping this.


It looks like even the Australian Public Service (APS) has attempted to use this approach.
APS

I guess there is a lot more research to do. Is it even worth the time and energy or will it just lead to more uncertainty....maybe just accepting the status quo is the easiest path. That way I can can view the rich as marvelous benefactors that benefit society with no other questions asked. The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few has no detrimental impact on the lives of the not so rich and not so connected. In fact, those poor rich people ... man those poor poor rich people that gained all of their wealth through (well I guess that should never be questioned and doesn't matter) errr, those poor poor rich people are so heavily taxed. We unproductive commoners should pull our fair share and cut those taxes on the wealthy. It is only ethical. Hmmm, so so easy to just allow the brainwashing to take effect. No more worries. No more problems.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Blanket statement with no reasons to back it up. Capital gains, finance, interest and real estate balloons and monopolies are extractive. They grow exponentially and extract money from the economy rather than develop production or industry. I don’t really understand why people seem to be ok with the exploitation of other people’s work and financial fraud and manipulation which is the basis of our current economy. Y’all get so mad about people wanting “other people’s money” but seem fine with the elite stealing other people’s productivity and profit.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

What y’all don’t seem to realize is that today’s “investments” are not investments in productivity or creation of something. They are largely investments in false inflation of value for static productivity, creating no equivalent growth in production or growth in wages. So if more money is being taken out through profit, but no extra pay or production is created then pay or production actually goes down. For instance, an apartment raises their rent. Yes the owner bought the complex, but often rent is raised without updates to the apartment or grounds. This is subtractive to the purchasing power of the people who are renting there. This expands to our whole economy from banks increasing interest and fees, to stocks inflated through buybacks or dividends etc. it’s increasing the wealth of those who own them without doing any work by extracting it from the people actually working.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Have you been down this path before? Maybe in another venue? Have you ever had success with this particular of view on inequality and the solutions to try and resolve this?



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky
Honestly, just reading and watching Hudson made it all make sense. He’s the only one who’s done a real history of economics. And one thing I extrapolate is this. Throughout time when banks, speculators and rentiers are allowed they eventually dominate every single economy, and eventually become so burdensome that they bring every economy to a halt as they extract all the surplus from the system and eventually there’s no profit for the workers. In ancient times they had the jubilee, where the oligarchs and bankers and such would lose all their money through a debt forgiveness, and the economy would restart. Now the bankers and ruling class have shifted it so that we have economic crashes, where basically instead of the banks and oligarchs lose everything, now the workers lose everything. So, to sum up. Due to the wealthy elites inability to rein in their massive greed, they take more and more of the wealth until each economy implodes. And instead of them losing everything at the end now we lose everything.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Obviously you, and that 'left-wing professor', are completely ignorant of the real history behind these types of taxes.

These types of "progressive taxes" will eventually include everyone, not just the rich.

Not to mention that "those rich people" will try to balance their gains by reducing the amount of workers, or reducing their pay, or worse.

This never works... Sorry, but real history tells a different story.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Honestly to me you all seem completely blind to what’s going on right in front of your eyes. I don’t need ancient history. All I need do is look at the statistics from my lifetime. The nation, according to gdp and productivity, has been doing AMAZING!!!!! Or so every single chart and statistic tells us. And yet % of gdp paid to wages keeps shrinking. Actual wages stagnate compared to inflation. Benefits cover less and less of what they used to. Interest rates get higher and higher on credit cards. Personal debt keeps getting bigger. Retirements get pushed back further, if they are an option at all.

It’s a very clear picture. We all work harder and are far more productive and yet ALL the increase in profit from this increase goes to a smaller and smaller group of people. We are expected to work harder and harder and be ok with less of a return on it. And y’all think this is ok. Good for you. I disagree. Where is the endgame? Do you think at some point it’s going to change this clear pattern, and that wages will rise, and costs will go down? Or are y’all ok with people getting less and less of what they produce? Apparently y’all don’t care about future generations or even your own children’s generation. Good for you, I disagree.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And I’d say Hudson knows far more about Econ history than you. He’s the only one who’s done an in depth research on economic history from the present going back thousands of years. But if you haven’t watched the video I posted or any of his other interviews, don’t bother to comment on what he knows. It’s just pointless contention then.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
To add, seriously. He teaches Econ in multiple nations universities. He works with and has worked for governments all over the world. Disparage him if you want but what other economists have nations begging them to come help?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Don't care what anyone says; the rich will always work for money because they crave it.

From the perspective of the rich 80% tax still means they make 20% and if they've already got a $100 mil or so, well they have to do something to stop themselves from becoming board sh less don't they.

Can you imagine someone like that whos'e worked 18 hours a day for the last 20 years sitting at home watching who'se xxxting who shows? all day, they would crazy.

This idea that the rich would immediately stop working if we up'ed their tax rates to 70% after $50,m/year and 80% after $100m/year is completely insane. It just shows how easily influenced some people are.

The rich are addicted to money and power - How many times does it have to be said before it sinks in.

They cannot just throw their hands up in the air and say just because I now pay 80% tax; I no longer want to get wealthier than I am and I no longer want any more power. Do you REALLY think they think like that.

Anyone who thinks like that has a lot to learn in life. Of course they want more money and more power no matter how much money they have, - They are ADDICTED to it, christ sake, surely common sense prevails.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Of course Ocasio-Cortez is right. After WWII and before Reagan, America used a high tax rate to distribute wealth in America. It was not perfect, of course, but the middle class grew substantially and prospered. Once Reagan took office and reduced the tax to fund his percolate up tax policy, average family earnings have stayed about the same now (for over 40 years) while the price for many if not most goods and services have risen over 5 times. Prior to Reagan, one household member could earn enough to fund the family and still save money for retirement, today both spouses work and live paycheck to paycheck. Progress? I think not. But at least the wealthy have more money to own the government and control our lives. Excellent tradeoff for reducing taxes on the wealthy, don't you think?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: tabularosa
Of course Ocasio-Cortez is right. After WWII and before Reagan, America used a high tax rate to distribute wealth in America. It was not perfect, of course, but the middle class grew substantially and prospered. Once Reagan took office and reduced the tax to fund his percolate up tax policy, average family earnings have stayed about the same now (for over 40 years) while the price for many if not most goods and services have risen over 5 times. Prior to Reagan, one household member could earn enough to fund the family and still save money for retirement, today both spouses work and live paycheck to paycheck. Progress? I think not. But at least the wealthy have more money to own the government and control our lives. Excellent tradeoff for reducing taxes on the wealthy, don't you think?


The US economy boomed after WWII because we were the only industrialized nation on the planet. Europe and Japan was destroyed. It had nothing to do with tax rates. It had to do with the US being the only consumer / manufacturer around.

Feminism is why one salary cannot support a household. As women began to enter the work force up through the 80s, they supply of workers increased and thus put pressure on wages. In addition, it also created a need for things like daycare, etc as both parents were out of the home working.

Further exacerbating the problem is that easy financing for things like mortgages and school have drastically inflated the cost of living.



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Any plan that involves taking more from those that earned it to support those that can't or won't is Socialist. The debate is over right there.



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
They pay 40% of the taxes. They claim 90% of the profit. a reply to: Edumakated


There is an old saying I have heard the wealthy say.
Pay yourself first then pay others.

When it comes down to it, the ceos and execs just raise their pay and pass the costs down to consumers.
So that loaf of bread or that high rent bill being purchased by the bottom 50% are paying those taxes in other ways.

We need to make it so it comes out of their pockets and not passed down to the poor and middle class.




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join