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.

 

Billionaire Michael Dell Gets Schooled on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Tax Proposal

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 09:36 PM
link   
How about that huh?



Bloomberg Source

While the people on the right side of politics lost their collective heads over what this woman said a few weeks ago, the experts came out spinning reality checks in support. You know? Those dastardly liberal academics spewing facts? I mean *gasp* a 70-percent marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans!? No friggin way! Outrageous right? I mean we should be making America Great Again. The good ol' days of our parents? Our childhoods right? Those days.



Nostalgiac for the 50s and 60s: The Era of High Taxes in America and High Economic Growth


As National debt was paid down, the tax rates remained high, but the economy continued growing rapidly. The federal government remained a large part of US GDP, but as the 50s and 60s roared on, the government embarked on a spending campaign driven by the cold war. The government spent billions (trillions if we adjust for inflation) on infrastructure and research and development projects. The interstate highway system was built, water works were constructed, nuclear power plants were erected, airports were built, etc.

The technology that evolved from this era was nothing short of revolutionary: civilian nuclear energy, advanced jet engines that enabled civilian aviation, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), the transistor and semiconductor technology, computer languages, satellites, advanced radar, and ultimately space exploration, which culminated with one of America's proudest moments with the moon landing in 1969.


These aren't merely opinions. We've witnessed for ourselves the rapid decline in power of the Middle and Working classes over the last few decades. All in clear correlation to those massive tax cuts in favor of the wealthy, much of which occurred from the 80's onwards.

Limits to trickle-down: Trump's tax-cut "boom" fizzles


Trump's multi-trillion-dollar giveaway to the richest Americans and largest US corporations led to a rise in GDP, but it was a short-lived sugar-high: the major effect was a trillion dollars in stock buybacks that padded the bottom lines of super-rich investors who barely touch the real economy (you can only own so many super-yachts and operating costs are funneled through offshore flags-of-convenience anyway).

But investment in "factories, software and new equipment" only rose modestly for a single quarter, and has now fallen again.


How long are we going to continue pretending it's raining yellow again? All to protect our collective egos?




posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Great when I wonder?



+28 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Except your premise is quite wrong.

The EFFECTIVE tax rate then was lower than the EFFECTIVE tax rate now.

Let me type this slower for the [SNIP].... when in the 80's the tax rate was 90% the EFFECTIVE tax rate for corporations was actually about 21%.

Now it's 22% federally, some states have insane other taxes, like Kalifornia.

As opposed to Occasional-Cortex's plan... a sweeping 70% EFFECTIVE tax rate.

Which means if you do business in New York, or instance, you now have a 70% tax rate, then a sales tax, a property tax, a city tax... which puts you over 85% in taxes. Before sales taxes, tolls, etc.

What that does is shut down most businesses, pushes the unemployment rate sky-high and any products you are buying from the surviving companies quadruple in prices.

I personally wish now that the next President is a full-on socialist, they take the Senate and enact it immediately.

In about 5-6 years, the economy will finally collapse, liberals will eat each other out of necessity, the few remaining socialist politicians that did not escape to other countries will be hung from lamp posts and we can rebuild.

Let's put an economic theory that has never worked anywhere to the actual test, right?


edit on 29/1/19 by argentus because: removed insult


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Knowing how afraid these billionaires are of her proposals is enough to get my support. I remember a time on ATS when the billionaires who supposedly controlled the globe were the opposition.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Cortez' idea would only net 2 and a 1/2 trillion dollars or so in 10 years by only taxing the new income, while Warren's plan is an across the board wealth tax of 1% for those who have a net worth over $10 million and 2% for billionaires. The problems outlined in the CNN article were that this had been tried in some other country but they stopped due to difficulty collecting the tax. The owners of it have some tricks as well, putting it here or there. Gee, I should've brought up the article and quoted from it, I completely botched the numbers lol



Most proposals to tax the rich have focused on raising rates on income and capital gains, as well as increasing estate taxes. That's what Ocasio-Cortez raised on CBS' "60 Minutes" earlier this month, when she proposed setting rates as high as 70% on earnings above $10 million to help fund a climate change plan she describes as a "Green New Deal."
Warren, on the other hand, wants to tap into different pool of money -- the assets of the wealthy. A plan developed by her nascent presidential campaign would impose a 2% tax on Americans whose net worth exceeds $50 million, with an additional 1% levy on billionaires, according to documents provided by Warren's presidential campaign.




While hiking taxes on the rich is typically a go-to move for Democrats, a recent Fox News poll found that voters in both parties generally support raising rates on multimillionaires. Democrats are more enthusiastic, with 85% favoring raising taxes on those making more than $10 million. Some 54% of Republicans agree with this.

"There's an element where, yeah, people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes," she said. "Once you get to the tippie-tops, on your $10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60% or 70%. That doesn't mean all $10 million dollars are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more."

The nation's top income tax rate was 70% in the 1970s, though the tax system was much different back then. It dropped significantly during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, then rose a bit under Democratic presidents and fell somewhat under Republican ones. Most recently, the 2017 tax bill trimmed the top rate to 37%, down from 39.6%.
While it may sound good to some to raise the top rate, many experts say this is not the most effective way to hike taxes on the rich since it would only hit taxable income above $10 million.
"Just raising income tax rates on the highest-income households doesn't do as much for progressivity as some wish," Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, wrote in a blog post the day after Ocasio-Cortez' comments aired.




Warren, meanwhile, is suggesting taxing accumulated wealth, not annual income.
University of California Berkeley economics professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who analyzed the proposal for the Warren team, estimate that 75,000 households -- less than the wealthiest 0.1% -- would be subject to this tax. The plan would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years.
Experts are divided over how well a wealth tax would work and whether it is permitted by the US Constitution, which limits Congress' power to levy so-called "direct taxes." Several scholars, including multiple former heads of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, have written to the Warren campaign defending the plan's legality.


www.cnn.com...

edit on 1/27/2019 by r0xor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I heard about those days from the thirties to the fifties with the seventy percent rate. My uncles, aunts, parents, and their friends mentioned how good they had it since the sixties.. They experienced the depression, they said things looked up after the depression compared to the depression times but were not really that good of times. After the sixties, things started to boom. That guy who made the statement about good times between the thirties and fifties is totally delusional, remember, the war was going on then, rationing, and yes, factories boomed because they were working making military stuff during the forties, the money was actually coming from the government in the first place. Throughout the forties it boomed because our government was rebuilding the military and nuclear power and bombs were being made, all the cost of taxes like that are passed on to the consumer. The government was a big consumer, businesses were expanding, so they invested their profits into expansion. Right now that won't work unless we bring back factories to America.

That whole skit is a joke, the guy's evidence was not even pertinent to todays world and his so called evidence wasn't even being considered correctly. I am not even going to benefit because I am not rich but I can see what this will do. The money will just move out of this country again, they will go to countries where less taxes are paid on income like they did before. Talk about deceit targeting the low to middle class which will hurt our country and put everyone into poverty.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I don't believe 100% that returning to a 70% Marginal Tax rate or something similar will solve the issues we're facing at the moment with the economy, with the lower and middle classes. What I do know from looking into this issue, with confidence, from research, is that we've been royally ****ed over over the last 3 or so decades in way of tax cuts favoring the wealthy and big business.





It's clearly not working for the vast majority of Americans and people need to wake up to this fact.


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Except your premise is quite wrong.

The EFFECTIVE tax rate then was lower than the EFFECTIVE tax rate now.

Let me type this slower for the mouth-breathing socialists.... when in the 80's the tax rate was 90% the EFFECTIVE tax rate for corporations was actually about 21%.

Now it's 22% federally, some states have insane other taxes, like Kalifornia.

As opposed to Occasional-Cortex's plan... a sweeping 70% EFFECTIVE tax rate.

Which means if you do business in New York, or instance, you now have a 70% tax rate, then a sales tax, a property tax, a city tax... which puts you over 85% in taxes. Before sales taxes, tolls, etc.

What that does is shut down most businesses, pushes the unemployment rate sky-high and any products you are buying from the surviving companies quadruple in prices.

I personally wish now that the next President is a full-on socialist, they take the Senate and enact it immediately.

In about 5-6 years, the economy will finally collapse, liberals will eat each other out of necessity, the few remaining socialist politicians that did not escape to other countries will be hung from lamp posts and we can rebuild.

Let's put an economic theory that has never worked anywhere to the actual test, right?


Thread answered
Ignorance denied



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

They won't understand my post though... LOL

Let's get the party started!!!!!


edit on 27-1-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

I've tried showing people the difference between the Effective Tax Rate and the Statutory Tax Rate but nothing matters to them other than taking more.




posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   
This tax the rich thing is just bitter envy and jealousy.

There's not enough money "to be taxed" that adds up to much more than the height of an ant hill 🤣

And all the "government" would do is piss the money away to special interest criminals anyway 🤣

Most of the "intellectuals" coughing up numbers are inmates in a mental facility 🤣



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari


The EFFECTIVE tax rate then was lower than the EFFECTIVE tax rate now.

Let me type this slower for the mouth-breathing socialists.... when in the 80's the tax rate was 90% the EFFECTIVE tax rate for corporations was actually about 21%.






Where's your source?


I personally wish now that the next President is a full-on socialist,


Like the rest of the world? Can you fill in the gap left by many others and give us an example of a country with a well and truly free-market, socialist free, economy?



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Lumenari

I've tried showing people the difference between the Effective Tax Rate and the Statutory Tax Rate but nothing matters to them other than taking more.







+3 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

It is worse than that. This is a tax scheme to tax the crap out of our 401K's and retirement savings. The REAL rich pay only 15% capital gains (if that) and would continue to do so. The real money is those Trillions in retirement that they can't wait to get their hands on.

www.politico.com...

8,274 returns were filed by people making $10 million or more.


2nd thing to consider... you increase "Taxable Income Brackets" you screw EVERYONE when it is time to retire on that 401K


So, the "Real Rich" will get taxed 15% on capital gains and us suckers who have saved in 401K's for decades get to shell out 40%-50%-60% of our money for miss dumb@sses new taxes.

No Thank You....


So, maybe some of you are catching on.... the REAL plan is to get to us middle class people to increase our rates and get OUR retirement because that is where the REAL money is in bulk.

Last I looked there was over 24 TRILLION dollars in retirement holdings that the Democrats want to increase taxes on. Those measly 8,000 and change people that actually make 10 million in income tax is nothing compared to taxing the living crap out of us on that retirement money. They cannot wait to get their claws into it.

That is the real goal.

This is the money they want to raise taxes on or confiscate to fund their Social Security 2 plan.


401kspecialistmag.com...



Total retirement assets held in the United States hit $24.1 trillion as of March 31, up .6 percent from the end of December, according to the Investment Company Institute’s latest roundup of the 401(k) and retirement savings industries. Retirement assets accounted for 34 percent of all household financial assets in the United States at the end of the first quarter of 2016.

The report also found that Americans held $6.8 trillion in all employer-based DC retirement plans on March 31, of which $4.8 trillion was held in 401(k) plans.

Assets IRAs totaled $7.4 trillion at the end of the first quarter of 2016, an increase of 1 percent from the end of the fourth quarter of 2015. Defined contribution (DC) plan assets rose 1.7 percent in the first quarter of 2016 to $6.8 trillion.

edit on 27-1-2019 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Lumenari

I've tried showing people the difference between the Effective Tax Rate and the Statutory Tax Rate but nothing matters to them other than taking more.






It's not actually their fault.

Democrats started the Department of Education a long time ago to make generations of people who were smart enough to pull the levers and fix the machines, but not smart enough to question why they were chained to them.

Now we have this...

I'm honestly thinking the Democrats have won.

There are now more stupid people in America than intelligent ones.

So don't blame the stupid people, blame the people who made them that way.




posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

You are correct, in my opinion... they have already raped Social Security and the next big takeover is our 401ks.

They need the money, after all...

After that it will be property.

For the common good, of course.



+4 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Your chart is cute!

When I had a business in the 80's I paid about 22% total for my taxes.

I own a business now and I pay about 59% in taxes.

Odd that it doesn't show up on your graph...

Ever own a business?

Just curious.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
It's clearly not working for the vast majority of Americans and people need to wake up to this fact.


I hope you're not anticipating them to ever wake up to that, it's not going to happen. Our politics are so ingrained in our minds, and I'm lumping myself into "our" so I don't get mobbed, on party lines here in the U.S. at least, that middle class people will honestly go out of there way to argue that billionaires shouldn't be taxed a bit extra to give the Government more funds to implement and run programs for the common good of all U.S. citizens. Taxing the wealthiest more slows growth and employment because they're reinvesting the money into their business, creating employment, and starting new businesses is the arguement.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Where's your source Lumenari?

I'm not interested in what you believe.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

So, do you really think for one second that they will not have insane taxes on that "taxed as income" retirement plan? After all, what do you need with 400K, 700K, or whatever you are going to have taxed at huge levels.

Don't fall for the bait.

(See last post).



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join