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.

 

AOC Wants To Raise Taxes On The Rich — And Americans Agree

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


Are you disputing that tax payers funded the US interstate system, our infrastructures, dams, schools, bridges, roads, tunnels, airports, etc..? Are you denying that in the 1956, while all these plans were being implemented, the tax rate for earners over $200K was 91%?

Did I ever say that fuel taxes, corporate taxes, etc never played into this funding for these vast and lofty projects?

You guys are so typical! Reduce taxes for the rich, reducing our tax revenue by trillions of dollars, and then blame the Dems for the federal deficit.



edit on 19-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

When I see your reponses it reminds me to be careful about what I am about to post lest I too look like a fool.

edit on 2019/1/19 by Metallicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Can you please just admit you were wrong on this one.

It's a historical fact that the US Interstate system was paid by those who were going to use it, the American driver, with gas and various motor vehicle-related taxes.

That is not an income tax per your claim. Which means that your claim is factually incorrect.

Please stop trying to argue another avenue that you know won't pan out.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
"AOC! The government keeps sending me bills for all the money I borrowed to get my Underwater Feminist Basket Weaving Theory Degree and I don't like paying it, but that guy over there has way more money than I do! It's not FAIR! Tax him more to pay for my degree!" /end whiny Cartman voice.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




Can you please just admit you were wrong on this one.


Nope. Tax payers funded the US interstate system, our infrastructures, roads, schools, bridges, tunnels, airports, etc. FACT!

In 1956 the tax rate for the income bracket of $200K and over was 91% FACT!



It's a historical fact that the US Interstate system was paid by those who were going to use it, the American driver, with gas and various motor vehicle-related taxes.


It's an historical fact that tax payer funded Defense Dept. dollars were diverted to fund a good portion of the interstate system. Around $25 billion, I believe. Fuel taxes were an additional source of revenue that was later approved by Congress, as my 2 links on the subject showed.
edit on 19-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ah well, the interstate highway network was a Defense Dept, project because in an era where nuclear war was deemed to be a very real possibility, the highways were designed, not as a convenient transport system for families looking to travel cross country so much as means of defense. Among other thing, they were backup landing strips. That's why so many interstates have random straight stretches in them. It's by design. Planes were meant to be able to use them as landing strips if needed.

So, I guess your argument is that we can designate the wall as a defense project and use defense funds to preserve our national security since the precedent is there with the national interstate highway system.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You might find this paper worth reading for a balanced p.o.v.

Revisiting the High Tax Rates of the 1950's:

www.manhattan-institute.org...



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Does no one remember when Francois Hollande raised the top rate to 70%? Didn't last very long because people were gonna leave the country. I guess if you're willing to force people to stay and pay, it could work, but then what would that make you?

And no, "I'll never make that kind of money so I've no problem with it" is not a valid argument.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Neither is "But they can afford it!" Neither is "But no one really needs that much!"

Those are usually the other two reasons I see.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your original argument in reference to paying a 90% marginal tax rate:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Er, it paid for our infrastructure, bridges, tunnels, our interstate highways, airports, dams, etc.. You know, all that old stuff that's crumbling now?


What I was responding to:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've argued many times that this isn't a crazy, radical idea and it's been upwards of 90% in the past.


What I said:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And did nothing.

The differences between the "haves" and "have-nots" is financial know-how and investment.

You do NOT need a lot of money to invest.


What I said regarding your assertion that the marginal tax rate of 90% paid for the interstate system:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, it most certainly did not.


My evidence proving my point:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just admit you're wrong.

I never said taxpayers didn't pay for it as evidenced above. I said the 90% tax rate didn't achieve what you say it did because, as it has been presented to you already from YOUR OWN SOURCES, it was paid for by other means.

You're wrong. Just suck it up.
edit on 19 1 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join