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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

My God don't escalate the realities people will freak out 😀




posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Lumenari

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


The Venezuela trick almost worked for the Socialists.

The failure was too many people found out 😎



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

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?


401Ks are taxable as income right now, whenever you withdraw those funds.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 10:29 AM
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.


Amazon is not Jeff Bezos' wallet. Amazon is a corporation that enjoys corporate tax rates and Jeff Bezos receives a salary, which is taxable as income tax. When Amazon realizes profits, whose profits are distributed among the corporation's individual shareholders. Those funds are also taxed as income tax.

If this tax was to go into effect, Jeff Bezos would pay 70% tax on every dollar over $10 million he earned in salary and in shareholder profit distribution that year.


In such a case, the board of directors need to decide whether it's fiscally wiser to invest in employees or to turn those funds not spent on increased employee wages, for the sake of profit, over to the IRS.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


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 perfectly possible for inequality to rise while the average income also rises. If a bunch of people suddenly get rich, like we saw during the dot-com boom, it will increase inequality, but in reality nothing got worse, things actually got much better for a fraction of people who were smart enough to get on the technology train.

An economy which produces wealthy individuals should not automatically be negative. Also your chart doesn't even appear to show income, it shows savings, and it cuts off a large portion of time where the income was actually rising for the lower and middle classes, resulting in an overall similar rise in incomes for the top and bottom classes.



Also, inequality does not translate directly into poverty. Hong Kong has high levels of inequality, higher than the U.S., they also have low taxes for individuals and businesses, yet the life expectancy is one of the highest in the world and their ratio of homeless people is one of the lowest in the world, more than 8x lower than the U.S.

Australia also ranks better than the U.S. in terms of equality yet Australia ranks worse than the U.S. in terms of homelessness, more than 2.5x worse. As others have pointed out there are many economic factors at play beyond just tax rates, and the time-frame you reference was very unlike today, the war gave the U.S. a big advantage.

It's easy to pick out one example where high tax rates seemed to have worked, but it's just as easy to show examples of nations which have prospered by adhering to a philosophy of non-interventionism and free trade. Some of the nations with the highest tax rates include Pakistan (35% corp tax, 17% VAT), Venezuela (34% corp tax, 16% VAT), Mexico (31% corp tax, 16% VAT).

Some of the lowest rates can be found in highly developed nations or rapidly developing nations like Saudi Arabia (5% corp tax, 5% VAT), Hong Kong (8.25%-16.25% corp tax, 0% VAT), Switzerland (17.92% corp tax, 7.7% VAT). So I don't really see how your argument holds water, even if tax rates alone determined the fate of a nation we have clear evidence favoring low tax rates.

List of countries by homeless population
List of countries by life expectancy
List of countries by income equality
List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita
List of countries by tax rates
Economy of Hong Kong

edit on 28/1/2019 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

what is sad: the whole tax argument reminds me of the South right after abolition.

People who are holding less wealth look to leadership for guideance. Unfortunately, humans tend to look to wealth as leadership. And the wealthy tend to lie to the plebes in order to ensure their own wealth.

The tax problem will not be resolved by appealing to the voters. Voters are too ignorant to wade through the graduate level math being used.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
To me, regardless of what shape the plan takes, there needs to be a rapid removal of assets from the very rich. We're not backed by gold and money is a stand in for the exchange of goods and services. Allowing anyone to concentrate wealth the way we have been means that a percentage of resources can not be traded or exchanged fairly in the open market.

If the item was anything other than money the people concentrating wealth would be considered hoarders. Keeping any thing in the numbers that billionaires keep money is detrimental too any system dependent on exchange. It's not a matter of right or left but allowing people with mental disorders to dictate trading patterns and resource availability for everyone else.

It's most definitely undemocratic at best and at worse it's a way to concentrate wealth to a governing body who has no constituents which can hold that state accountable. Its literally supporting a shadow government that so many right wingers deplore at least vocally.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
At 70% that comes out to additional 80 billion in taxes... Not going pay for Ocasio-Cortez's 100% socialized America, or even 1% of it.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

You need to get Madison avenue white america out of your mind. Its clouding the vision. Its everything they taught you not to be. Hyperbolic, racist, ignorant and that good old phrase tossed around in the early 80's by truly mind free professors, cognitively dissonant.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You may not appreciate how much like Leninist you sound. But I implore you to look at how this type translation of economy effected Russia once the Leninistas took full control. Millions died of starvation and were violated of all their rights we recognize under american revolutionary philosophy. Lenin, his whole approach was an economic solution anyway, and economic interpretation of the state of things not simply confined to industry but as well to agriculture, religion, education and politics. His framework and ground work foundational allowed real and heavy abuse during Stalin. Leninist gains and the public support for same allowed for the rise of very strong dictatorship with force equal to any king that ever came up on his high horse.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

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.






I think its best to say, there are more people that can't think clearly these days since they haven't been educated by their "parents" let alone the teachers at school.
I remember teaching my daughter how to read quickly and think quickly about what she was reading, in this case it was japanese kanji. By doing that she was able to remember the kanji drawings very quickly and their meanings.
So really, I think parents are the main problem for children that have a lessor ability to learn to think for themselves.

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, 28 2019 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: infolurker

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?


401Ks are taxable as income right now, whenever you withdraw those funds.


Yes, Exactly! it is bad enough at today's tax rate..... Think about cashing your 401K with a damned 70% tax!!! (That is the goal and where the real money comes from... as stated before, there are less than 10,000 people that make over 10 mil a year... the real money are those trillions of dollars in retirement accounts.
edit on 28-1-2019 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder


It's perfectly possible for inequality to rise while the average income also rises.


Incomes have risen for the middle and lower classes. Just not fast enough to keep up with inflation and rises in costs. The result? What use to be common, a single working man in a family with home ownership, turned into a dual income household on rent for the newer generations.


If a bunch of people suddenly get rich, like we saw during the dot-com boom, it will increase inequality,


This is also correct. This isn't, however what Cortez or the OP or others alike are arguing. Where in the OP is there a suggestion for a singular class to solve economic woes? I understand 'communism' comes into mind when you see posts like mine Chaotic. You're programmed to automatically react that way.

I like Capitalism, but I also like to ensure protections and support for the vulnerable lower classes.


Also your chart doesn't even appear to show income, it shows savings,


Bigger paychecks, but little change in Purchasing Power.


Also, inequality does not translate directly into poverty. Hong Kong has high levels of inequality, higher than the U.S., they also have low taxes for individuals and businesses, yet the life expectancy is one of the highest in the world and their ratio of homeless people is one of the lowest in the world, more than 8x lower than the U.S.


Thank God they're not homeless.



I like that word homeless. Cuts out a large chunk of the population.

Record 1.37 million people living below poverty line A large chunk for a city. 7.3 million people in total and rising.


Australia also ranks better than the U.S. in terms of equality yet Australia ranks worse than the U.S. in terms of homelessness, more than 2.5x worse.


The US measures at 12.3%. Australia measures at 13.3%
www.acoss.org.au...
poverty.ucdavis.edu...


It's easy to pick out one example where high tax rates seemed to have worked, but it's just as easy to show examples of nations which have prospered by adhering to a philosophy of non-interventionism and free trade.


And which nations are those? The Gulf States?

Nice chat.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Taxing the rich 70 to 90% is just stupid. Calculate all you want and the calculations may seem reasonable to those who "want" their idiot children (The Democrats) to succeed in destroying what our nation has always been, but the reality is this. Tax the rich that much and they will simply pull their businesses up by the roots and go to another country that won't tax them that much. This will leave America with hardly any businesses, therefore no GDP growth, no jobs, people homeless and waiting in bread lines. That's what this is all about anyway isn't it? Destroying America and trying to get stupid, lazy people to agree with it. Tax them that much...and there will be no income for America. I know if I had a business and was taxed almost all of my earnings for the business, I would leave. it would be impossible for a business to grow and put the money earned back into the business, as well as hire people, if all of the money was just being given away to lazy people who don'tr want to work. Socialism is the dumbest idea on earth, unless you're one of the ones who bleed the system and refuse to work hard like everyone else who makes that money. Only then would it make sense I suppose. Every Socialist country has failed miserably and Venezuela is a working template of failure as we speak. Putting the word "Democratic" in front of the word Socialism makes no difference at all. That's about as legit as the "Patriot" Act 2, which is anything but Patriotic. It's just a word. I hope other people aren't falling for this like the rest of these idiot posters. Your girl Cortez is a crazy and unstable person and fits right in with the Democrats. This is clear to those who can think at all. She will not succeed.
edit on 29-1-2019 by IlluminatiTechnician because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Lenin's position was that the people were ignorant and unable to sort through the solutions provided them?

Thats my only point: that taxes have become more complex than regular people can really understand.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   


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.


Here's a GD reality check.

Read the GD bill of rights instead of trying to create a new 3/5's class.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: infolurker

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?


401Ks are taxable as income right now, whenever you withdraw those funds.


Yes, Exactly! it is bad enough at today's tax rate..... Think about cashing your 401K with a damned 70% tax!!! (That is the goal and where the real money comes from... as stated before, there are less than 10,000 people that make over 10 mil a year... the real money are those trillions of dollars in retirement accounts.


People can't sock away 10s of millions of dollars in 401Ks.


Unless your plan terms provide otherwise, the salary (elective) deferral limit is applied uniformly to the compensation that the employee receives throughout the year.

Compensation and contribution limits are subject to annual cost-of-living adjustments. The annual limits are:

-salary deferrals - $19,000 in 2019 ($18,500 in 2018), plus $6,000 in 2015 - 2019 if the employee is age 50 or older (IRC Sections 402(g) and 414(v))

-annual compensation - $280,000 in 2019, $275,000 in 2018 (IRC Section 401(a)(17))

-total employee and employer contributions (including forfeitures) - the lesser of 100% of an employee’s compensation or $56,000 for 2019 ($55,000 for 2018 not including "catch-up" elective deferrals of $6,000 in 2015 - 2019 for employees age 50 or older) (IRC section 415(c))

Example: Mary, age 49, whose annual compensation is $360,000 ($30,000 per month), elects to defer $1,500 per calendar month, up to $18,500 for the 2018 year. Mary may contribute to the plan until she reaches her annual deferral limit of $18,500 even though her compensation will exceed the annual limit of $275,000 in October.
www.irs.gov...



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Most of the income of America’s super-wealthy comes not from labor but from capital. It can be earned through capital gains, exercising stock options, and from corporations with possible foreign domiciles. Raising the marginal income tax rate to 70 percent will not, for better or worse, squeeze them very much.

So the rich still get richer and since corporate gains are fluid they invest more in other countries. Making those gains untouchable. So who does this hurt then. Well your doctors and lawyers and other professionals.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

What I find interesting is the same people who want to massively expand the government and the take over of private wealth are those that want to attack children as racist for wearing maga hats, and ignore actual adult racist screaming at them

Oh, you know, like the thread you pushed and then ignored when the full facts came out

Sorry if i don’t want those people to have this massive increase in power



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yep, jealousy; you don't take other's success very well, even when their success makes YOU wealthier.

Same socialist moronic thinking that destroys nations and CAUSES poverty and STARVATION - ex: Venezuela.
www.zerohedge.com...

What is worse is the taxation pile-on by dingbats like Warren and AOC who have ZERO understanding of how successful economies work and grow.
www.zerohedge.com...

But hey, go ahead, destroy America... "Wah, wah, wah, Billy has more than me, wah, wah, wah..."

Grow up!




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join