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: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I just want to know if Jeff Bezos would've raised his companies minimum wage to $15 an hour while still getting # from the media if he had been taxed 1% more.



+1 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

A few questions here..

A.) Do you realize how many of her fellow high ranking Democrats ( Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer ) fall into this tax bracket? And how many mainstream media executives that promote her nonsense do as well?

B.) Do you honestly think they would support this if push came to shove? Or do you think maybe this is just optics for supporting their anti-Trump poster child?

C.) Do you only post as BlackJackal in the Breaking News forum and save this username for the mudpit?

And for good measure..




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



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.







Oh come on now give AOC a break. What do you expect from someone who believes




If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — Uh, rather all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House,”


Link



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



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: r0xor
I just want to know if Jeff Bezos would've raised his companies minimum wage to $15 an hour while still getting # from the media if he had been taxed 1% more.


Most billionaires fund Democrats to insulate themselves from their raising taxes plans. They will be exempted while they tax the crap out of the middle class.

Liberal billionaires pour hundreds of millions into midterms hoping for Blue Wave
www.foxnews.com...

Inside a secretive billionaire club’s plan to help Democrats take Congress
www.politico.com...


And these fools filled with envy and jealously will gladly watch their own tax brackets go up and forfeit their retirements because they THINK they are going to stick it to the rich but they are really sticking it to themselves and the rest of us when they lay waste to our retirement savings.

(Insert swear word here)


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



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed


A few questions here..


Sure.


A.) Do you realize how many of her fellow high ranking Democrats ( Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer ) fall into this tax bracket?


Hell yes, why not.

You're talking about establishment politicians in the Democratic party, just like in the Republican party, who earn off the backs of lobbyist and corporate donors. I'm well aware of this.


B.) Do you honestly think they would support this if push came to shove?


Hell no.

Establishment politicians in both parties would oppose this, for sure. This includes Pelosi and Schumer, political hacks tied head deep in corporate and lobbyist monies. This also includes Trump and the corporate hacks backing him.


C.) Do you only post as BlackJackal in the Breaking News forum and save this username for the mudpit?


I'm not BlackJackal. I've never spoken to BlackJackal outside of our public posts on this forum. I find it very funny that you'd make such an accusation. Well, a little disturbing as well that this is your mindset to somebody who just happens to disagree with you in politics (very personal), but funny, mostly.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari


You're talking about corporate tax on profits, not individual income tax, which is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's tax proposal would address, personal income, not corporate profits.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Maybe you can answer my question.

Is trump a pro establishment politician?



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari


You're talking about corporate tax on profits, not individual income tax, which is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's tax proposal would address, personal income, not corporate profits.



To include 401K baby!

Bet?



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Lumenari

Where's your source Lumenari?

I'm not interested in what you believe.


You can just google it... I don't spoonfeed the intellectually challenged normally.

I'm no longer interested in you.

Just another useless eater, as Kissinger called the Democratic voters. He's one of your leaders, so he should know.

Again, I sincerely hope that your ideology has caught on enough that it sweeps the political realm in America soon and takes everything over.

Then the idea can collapse, we will become a third world nation for awhile, people like you will shoot each other for a can of Spam, we can bottom out and the actual Americans can rebuild.

Because the founding fathers would have laughed at you and dismissed you.

Have a good night.




posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   
A few thoughts when I hear libs talking about high rates during the 50s...

1) Very few people paid those rates.

2) The economy was booming because the US was the only economy! We had this little neighborhood skirmish called WWII that left Europe and Japan in ruins. The US was the only industrial country left standing...

3) The uber wealthy don't earn "Wages" like working stiffs. When someone earns $100 million, they aren't getting a w2 like Joe Sixpack. Most people making $10 million or more a year are getting it through capital gains, a business sale, or some other alternative income. The tax rates that AOC and her ilk talk about are for wage earners. This is why Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary. His secretary gets wage while Warren is getting investment income. Big difference.

4) Capital is very fluid, especially with technology nowadays. At some point, producers will get tired of leeches and move to lower tax areas. All one has to do is see the flight of billionaires out of NYC, NJ, and CT down to Florida.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari


You can just google it... I don't spoonfeed


Actually no. The onus is on you as the person who makes the claim, or pushes a fact, to provide a source. So once again, where's your source? Or did you pull that claim out of nothing?


I'm no longer interested in you.


So you don't have any sources, which means you're going to run away?

Bye.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

If the effective tax rate is 70% that would mean the top tax brackets are much higher than 70%

Here is the difference between marginal and effective tax rates explained by a CPA. This does not even take into account State, City, Property, etc.




posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


So what would the incentive be for people to make more than $9,999,999 a year?

Don't get me wrong. That is an incredible amount of money, at least for me.


$100.00 in 1960 with inflation is equivalent to $838.52 today.



www.saving.org...


So with that in mind, what do you think would be the top number to tax at 70%, or would you just go with 10 million?

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



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

You need to wake up that you cannot tax your way to prosperity.

Fact is, level of prosperity has risen for EVERYONE: that is what GDP growth IS.

You are merely bitching jealousy because the rich have been rising faster.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Just look at Venezuela. That should end all debate right there.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Cortez is still young and overly idealistic. Quixotic is the word



/kwikˈsädik/Submit
adjective
exceedingly idealistic; unrealistic and impractical.
"a vast and perhaps quixotic project"
synonyms: idealistic, unbusinesslike, romantic, extravagant, starry-eyed, visionary, utopian, perfectionist, unrealistic, unworldly; impracticable, unworkable, impossible, nonviable, inoperable, unserviceable; useless, ineffective, ineffectual, inefficacious
"the 1000-storey building is a vast, exciting and perhaps quixotic project"


Anyone who didn't know this can now walk away from the discussion having learned something. While most of our older, experienced congressmen didn't start off this way, times change drastically ever since.. the industrial revolution I suppose.

The early resistence to a harmless but very likeable (to Dems in a daughter or reminiscent type of way) congresswoman is noted among the right but, am I the only one thinking that she's gaining notoriety, for lack of a better term, that will possibly last her career partly in thanks to it? She's so far left that it's funny, she's being caught in saying naive things, she's making too many public statements for being so new and insignificant in the scheme of votes and influence, Fox even picks out the most unflattering still shots from her appearance as the pics they use for articles about her. There's a concerted effort and while I'm not against it or care that much, I do have my observations. The thought I leave with is usually that a prime adversary is being trained from the get go. I tell myself she's not that big of a deal, the things she's saying are even being seen as a stretch by some liberal news media. She needs another 10, 20 years to mature. I guess you're stuck "growing" with your favorite new girl.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein


So what would the incentive be for people to make more than $9,999,999 a year?


Same incentive as always, money, power, influence, much of which they'd likely be able to claim back on.

Were there people earning more than $9,999,999 before the 80s? Before the massive cuts? Yes.

Are there people earning more than that amount in countries with similar tax rates? Yes.

There will always be the wealthy elite at the top of the economic foodchain. It's not necessarily a matter of 'motivation', rather an inevitability given the way we structure our economy and those whomake it to the top. You're getting taxed more, but you're earning more, no? Bezo's earns more than $100 billion. Will he still earn far more than a person earning less than $10 mill after a 70% cut in taxes? Yes

And highvien, you may not care but I appreciate your post.
edit on 27-1-2019 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz


You need to wake up that you cannot tax your way to prosperity.


Certainly not, but it helps. It's one of the reforms needed to bring back the age of prosperity to the lower and middle classes.


Fact is, level of prosperity has risen for EVERYONE: that is what GDP growth IS.


If that's the case, why has income inequality grown substantially over the last 3 decades?



Sure, the middle and lower classes have experienced growth. But that growth is peanuts compared to that of the elite. it's pretty clear M5xaz.

It stinks.


You are merely bitching jealousy


You seem to have taken my post personally. Why's that? Do I threaten you in anyway? I'm honestly asking because this isn't my intention.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 12:00 AM
link   
A little off topic, sorry, but one of the best tax ideas Ive read about a year or so ago, seemed to make sense to me, but of course...I know nothing!!.

A US economist/Tax guy reckons, if EVERYONE is taxed at 15% of gross income, AND deductions are tightened to the Very minimum, in addition to a blanket 15% GST or VAT tax on everything (and current state taxes etc abolished).....that the economy would boom, there would be heaps of money for the Govt and business alike.

His thinking was that currently, these multi million $ people/Families/trusts etc can Legally siphon off most of their income through, deductions, family trusts, offshore investments, losses even though they make money etc, and often someone making 50 million $ per years can reduce that to 20K and pay virtually No tax.......business do it too.

A revised tax system would eliminate all the loop holes and schemes, and the rich probably wouldnt baulk too much at a flat nominal rate.....plus a consumption tax.

Seems fair to me....but accountants and lawyers wouldn't like it of course.




posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: Southern Guardian






Don't look like ribs either 🤣




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join