Ocasio-Cortez suggests individual tax rates as high as 70%

Voters will be dying to give the House back to Republicans, long before the 2020 elections. Many Democrats are already having "voter's remorse". They are realizing how they were lied to....again.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.

Please enlighten us kind sir

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.

Care to elaborate?

I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.

Please enlighten us kind sir

A 70% tax on the ultra rich doesn’t wipe out the middle class.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: FamCore

And this is why it urked me that people were blatantly making stuff up about her.... You don't have to.

No reason to spend time and effort in digging her grave when she'll do it for you with her policy.

I couldn't agree more. I find myself defending her more than I want to. People are up in arms about her dance video. A goofy, innocent college project dance video in which she is fully clothed. Leave her alone on that. Pick on her 70% tax suggestions!

originally posted by: Edumakated
Very few paid those exorbidant tax rates so they were pointless.... second, this dimwit doesn't know the difference between income and wealth. The uber rich like the tech titans and people who are worth hundreds of millions and billions don't really have "income" hence they'd be unaffected.

She'd wind up taxing the bejezus out of doctors, lawyers, and businessmen who are basically the "working rich".

What is hilarious is this brainless broad was complaining she didn't make that much as a congresswoman, yet the congressional salary of $174,000 puts here in about the top 2.5-3% of wage earners in the country.

RE: "brainless"

You only criticize and hate in other people what you do not like about your own character. You understand it doesn't matter how much you earn if your living expenses are extremely high. What you have left over may not be enough to keep some people excited about participating. Maybe this is what she meant by her comments.

a reply to: Grambler

Can we finally admit "democratic socialism" is just socialism?

Short answer, yes.

More detailed, like all things I think it is on a spectrum. She is flagrant about her approach and policy regarding how to interject socialism. I think it was a clear shot across the bow that Bernie backed the other democrat in her race, almost like he knew this girl was too young blatant to deliver a far left flavor to the country.

a reply to: FamCore

"She is using very technical terms such as tippy top" at least those are real words. Biggly!

@Geech

Very few of the ultra rich earn wages. Since I know this is above your pay grade, I will explain.

When you work a 9 to 5 and get a "salary" you are typically paid as a w-2 employee. This is who typically gets hit with high INCOME taxes. So if you are say a doctor, lawyer, or any kind of other professional, if you are doing really well, you might clear say $500k. So you get a w-2 making $500k which puts you in the top 1%. No one considers these people UBER RICH. However, this is who would be affected by such an absurd tax policy.

Very few people who would likely qualify as UBER RICH get a w2 wage.

The UBER rich typically are earning their income through capital gains (buying and selling of investments). This is why Warren Buffet quipped he paid less percentage than his secretary. The secretary is a WAGE EARNER while Buffet is not. His income is coming capital gains which gets taxed at 0 - 20%. The reason the cap gains rate is lower is because the feds don't want to discourage investment AND that money (generally) has already been taxed as most investments are made with post tax dollars.

Huge CEO compensation is usually almost all stock options, not wages. A CEO might be making a salary of say $750,000 but could sell tens of millions in stock option compensation because the company wants their compensation tied to performance of the company. Billionaire CEOs often take salaries of $1 dollar.

Even your Hollywood elite, entertainers, and athletes who make tens of millions would avoid the tax because they incorporate themselves. Do you really think Will Smith gets a paystub for $20 million? No, he has a corporation that he formed that gets paid which then doles out some amount to him as a salary to reduce his tax liability.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.

Care to elaborate?

I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?

so now you imply I dont know math.

You would clear 6 million.

Tekll me out great purveyor of knowledge; if you endorse this plan, why wait for the government to tell you to give them you money.

Volunteer 70% of your income now. heck more than that, you probably only need a $100000 a year to live reasonably, so why not give all of your income but that to the government?

Or are you just speaking hypothetically?

I know for someone with your vast intellect dealing with us morons it may be hard to believe, but most wealthy people would be unwilling to work if that much of their income was taxed.

In addition, as was admitted in Cortez's green new deal, even these tax rates would not be close to paying for her projects, and so we should just borrow the rest.

Care you explain to us lowly common folk how borrowing tens of trillions of more dollars will work out as well?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Edumakated
Very few paid those exorbidant tax rates so they were pointless.... second, this dimwit doesn't know the difference between income and wealth. The uber rich like the tech titans and people who are worth hundreds of millions and billions don't really have "income" hence they'd be unaffected.

She'd wind up taxing the bejezus out of doctors, lawyers, and businessmen who are basically the "working rich".

What is hilarious is this brainless broad was complaining she didn't make that much as a congresswoman, yet the congressional salary of $174,000 puts here in about the top 2.5-3% of wage earners in the country.

RE: "brainless"

You only criticize and hate in other people what you do not like about your own character. You understand it doesn't matter how much you earn if your living expenses are extremely high. What you have left over may not be enough to keep some people excited about participating. Maybe this is what she meant by her comments.

Yes, this is exactly a reason why just screaming "tax the ruich at 70%" is a bad idea.

It sounds like they should have plenty left over, but maybe not.

She will now be making money that easily puts her in the top echelon of earners a year. So why shouldnt she volunteer to do what she demands of others?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.

Care to elaborate?

I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?

so now you imply I dont know math.

You would clear 6 million.

Tekll me out great purveyor of knowledge; if you endorse this plan, why wait for the government to tell you to give them you money.

Volunteer 70% of your income now. heck more than that, you probably only need a $100000 a year to live reasonably, so why not give all of your income but that to the government?

Or are you just speaking hypothetically?

I know for someone with your vast intellect dealing with us morons it may be hard to believe, but most wealthy people would be unwilling to work if that much of their income was taxed.

In addition, as was admitted in Cortez's green new deal, even these tax rates would not be close to paying for her projects, and so we should just borrow the rest.

Care you explain to us lowly common folk how borrowing tens of trillions of more dollars will work out as well?

Tax rates in this country are progressive, hence my point that many don’t understand.

The correct answer would be:

“I don’t have an answer because I don’t know what the other tax brackets are”, or something along those lines.

In AOC’s quip, she stated 70% for $10M or above, meaning you’re only getting taxed 70% on earnings over $10M. If I earned $10,000,001, I’m only paying 70% on $1.

Things will get better if we just give the the government more of our money. 70% to Uncle Sam. 10% to church. 5 percent to charity. We can pay our debts with the last 15% and go on welfare so the government can feed us from our 70%. Brilliant!

Let that woman speak. I can't wait to see the reverse that comes.
It's coming, you know this.

She was a bartender if I recall correctly.
Why doesn't she push for a cashless system so the government can get their fair share of that unreported revenue. You know she didn't turn in all that cash on her taxes.

And do ya suppose she paid income tax on the $3k suit in her photo shoot?

originally posted by: Edumakated
@Geech

Very few of the ultra rich earn wages. Since I know this is above your pay grade, I will explain.

When you work a 9 to 5 and get a "salary" you are typically paid as a w-2 employee. This is who typically gets hit with high INCOME taxes. So if you are say a doctor, lawyer, or any kind of other professional, if you are doing really well, you might clear say $500k. So you get a w-2 making $500k which puts you in the top 1%. No one considers these people UBER RICH. However, this is who would be affected by such an absurd tax policy.

Very few people who would likely qualify as UBER RICH get a w2 wage.

The UBER rich typically are earning their income through capital gains (buying and selling of investments). This is why Warren Buffet quipped he paid less percentage than his secretary. The secretary is a WAGE EARNER while Buffet is not. His income is coming capital gains which gets taxed at 0 - 20%. The reason the cap gains rate is lower is because the feds don't want to discourage investment AND that money (generally) has already been taxed as most investments are made with post tax dollars.

Huge CEO compensation is usually almost all stock options, not wages. A CEO might be making a salary of say $750,000 but could sell tens of millions in stock option compensation because the company wants their compensation tied to performance of the company. Billionaire CEOs often take salaries of $1 dollar.

Even your Hollywood elite, entertainers, and athletes who make tens of millions would avoid the tax because they incorporate themselves. Do you really think Will Smith gets a paystub for $20 million? No, he has a corporation that he formed that gets paid which then doles out some amount to him as a salary to reduce his tax liability.

Her 70% quip was in regards to earners over $10M. Doctors wouldn’t qualify.

I understand the point you’re making though, but they wouldn’t qualify either.

This tax she brought up would only touch around 5,000 people.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.

Care to elaborate?

I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?

Using the old "progressive" rates she talked about, with all the deductions available, probably not close to the actual 70%.

Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

And those 5000 people are rich enough to easily change citizenship to another country and avoid her insane tax measures leaving her with no one but us lowly peons to fund her insanity.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
It should come as no surprise that the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy.

Care to elaborate?

I earn $20M a year. I fall in the 70% tax bracket. Assuming no deductions, how much do I clear a year?

Using the old "progressive" rates she talked about, with all the deductions available, probably not close to the actual 70%.

Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.

Again, another poster who seems to conflate the top tax bracket one would fall into and the rate of income paid.

My statement, “the majority of this board doesn’t understand tax policy” seems to be standing.

originally posted by: pianopraze
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

And those 5000 people are rich enough to easily change citizenship to another country and avoid her insane tax measures leaving her with no one but us lowly peons to fund her insanity.

...sigh....