Green New Deal: Ocasio-Cortez aims to make air travel obsolete, aid those ‘unwilling’ to work

[eieio 1,594]

1 minute ago, Póg mo said:

No, no it's poor = lazy, and the rich = hard workers. Get it right

We all are born with unique qualities. Some love to work, some don't. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

I am in no doubt about that. However, I do get the impression that when someone says, AOC wishes for 70% tax on the wealthy, they think that means the government will take 70% of a rich person's income. 

 

Why not? The top rate on the wealthy used to be as high as 90%, so from where I stand a 70% tax rate is being generous, considering it only effects people after they make more than 10 million dollars. 

Currently the tax system designed to reward people for holding everyone else's feet to the fire. Firing or keeping employees on low pay does tend to become very attractive, if you know you own personal income will sky rocket and you are in a position to game the tax code.  

 

   Well, we are all entitled to our opinions, and my opinion is 70% is too high. Even the social democracies or democratic socialities or whatever they are called, they don't tax that high. And they actually get something of benefit from their taxes.

 

   At any rate, I think at that level of income, wealthy people will have creative ways to get around it, and I don't think an upper tax limit of 70% will get much support. 

[eieio 1,594]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Well, we are all entitled to our opinions, and my opinion is 70% is too high. Even the social democracies or democratic socialities or whatever they are called, they don't tax that high. And they actually get something of benefit from their taxes.

 

   At any rate, I think at that level of income, wealthy people will have creative ways to get around it, and I don't think an upper tax limit of 70% will get much support. 

It will. They will basically tell the bottom 51% that the reason they don't have as much as the top 5 % is because the top 5% took it from them. So then they tell the bottom 51% that they are going to take it from the top 5% and give it back to the bottom 51% where it rightfully belongs.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

I am in no doubt about that. However, I do get the impression that when someone says, AOC wishes for 70% tax on the wealthy, they think that means the government will take 70% of a rich person's income. 

 

Why not? The top rate on the wealthy used to be as high as 90%, so from where I stand a 70% tax rate is being generous, considering it only effects people after they make more than 10 million dollars. 

Currently the tax system designed to reward people for holding everyone else's feet to the fire. Firing or keeping employees on low pay does tend to become very attractive, if you know you own personal income will sky rocket and you are in a position to game the tax code.  

Actually, the top tax rate in 1944-45 was 94%.  BUT... it was only on income over $200,000.  That’s about $2.9 million 2019 dollars, NOT $10 million.  (In fact, only 0.1% of the US population make more than $1.1 mil per year.  And only 2,000 people made over $10 mil in 2011).  So you wouldn’t really be taxing all that many people.  (And they make a lot more than you, so it’s ok to take more from them, eh?). But where does it stop?

 

I’m curious to know how you claim the current tax system “holds everyone else’s feet to the fire”?  If everyone pays taxes on THEIR income margins, how is it unfair to anyone?  The poorest pay nothing, and the richest pay a LOT more, just as it is now.

 

ETA:  Your 94% tax rate in 1945... hardly anyone paid that, because they didn’t make enough to hit that upper bracket of $200,000.

 

1945 brackets:  https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1945

 

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by ALFKAD

[TBoneTX 46,457]

A post has been removed because of use of vulgar language.

[Dashinka 25,018]

8 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Paul Krugman, Mark Mazur, Peter Diamond, Christina Romer, Thomas Piketty, Joseph Stiglitz, to name a few economists who would support a 70% tax rate.

Even a majority of fox news viewers said they supported higher taxes for the wealthy.https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/fox-news-hosts-horrified-learn-172222093.html

 

Sure, with her GND no one would ever be in that tax bracket as it would mean the end of personal property ownership, entrepreneurship, etc.  Plus with those unwilling to work getting a handout by the government I imagine we would have a lot more people classified as poor and unhappy.

[Dashinka 25,018]

8 hours ago, Póg mo said:

I am in no doubt about that. However, I do get the impression that when someone says, AOC wishes for 70% tax on the wealthy, they think that means the government will take 70% of a rich person's income. 

 

Why not? The top rate on the wealthy used to be as high as 90%, so from where I stand a 70% tax rate is being generous, considering it only effects people after they make more than 10 million dollars. 

Currently the tax system designed to reward people for holding everyone else's feet to the fire. Firing or keeping employees on low pay does tend to become very attractive, if you know you own personal income will sky rocket and you are in a position to game the tax code.  

A lot of folks IMO from her base of support believe that, heck, she may even believe that herself.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[Dashinka 25,018]

7 hours ago, Póg mo said:

No, no it's poor = lazy, and the rich = hard workers. Get it right

Well, you got it half right.

7 hours ago, eieio said:

We all are born with unique qualities. Some love to work, some don't. 

You mean we are not all the same and fit into nice neat political identities?

[jg121783 3,921]

A 70% tax on anyone is insanity. That would remove the incentive to produce more because everyone would be trying to stay below the cut off for that tax bracket. Might as well go full communism where everyone earns the same amount regardless of how much they produce (in theory, in practice the party elites become filthy rich and everyone else barely gets by). I'm in favor of cutting tax rates for everyone across the board then making major cuts to wasteful spending. The left acts as though you are giving people something when you cut their taxes but you are simply allowing them to keep more of what was already theirs. When taxes are cut in the right way tax revenue actually goes up.

[Dashinka 25,018]

42 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

A 70% tax on anyone is insanity. That would remove the incentive to produce more because everyone would be trying to stay below the cut off for that tax bracket. Might as well go full communism where everyone earns the same amount regardless of how much they produce (in theory, in practice the party elites become filthy rich and everyone else barely gets by). I'm in favor of cutting tax rates for everyone across the board then making major cuts to wasteful spending. The left acts as though you are giving people something when you cut their taxes but you are simply allowing them to keep more of what was already theirs. When taxes are cut in the right way tax revenue actually goes up.

The thing that Socialists/Communists never tell anyone is that "they", the leaders of that movement, are a little more equal then everyone else.  Don't recall the leaders in the USSR, Cuba, or Venezuela working for the same pay as the hoi polloi.

 

 

[Póg mo 1,749]

4 hours ago, jg121783 said:

A 70% tax on anyone is insanity. That would remove the incentive to produce more because everyone would be trying to stay below the cut off for that tax bracket. Might as well go full communism where everyone earns the same amount regardless of how much they produce (in theory, in practice the party elites become filthy rich and everyone else barely gets by). I'm in favor of cutting tax rates for everyone across the board then making major cuts to wasteful spending. The left acts as though you are giving people something when you cut their taxes but you are simply allowing them to keep more of what was already theirs. When taxes are cut in the right way tax revenue actually goes up.

Like I was saying, some people do seem to have trouble with the concept of income tax deductions. 

[Póg mo 1,749]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The thing that Socialists/Communists never tell anyone is that "they", the leaders of that movement, are a little more equal then everyone else.  Don't recall the leaders in the USSR, Cuba, or Venezuela working for the same pay as the hoi polloi.

 

 

Apparently communism and socialism mean the same thing as well. 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

One could argue that the fractional percentage of people being taxed at this rate are under represented, wouldn't that make voting for such a thing unfair? If 99.5  percent of people have nothing to lose by it of course they are not against it. 

[Póg mo 1,749]

15 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Well, we are all entitled to our opinions, and my opinion is 70% is too high. Even the social democracies or democratic socialities or whatever they are called, they don't tax that high. And they actually get something of benefit from their taxes.

 

   At any rate, I think at that level of income, wealthy people will have creative ways to get around it, and I don't think an upper tax limit of 70% will get much support. 

70% after earning 10 million is not that high. Most social democracies apply the top rate when someone earns around sixty thousand. 

[Póg mo 1,749]

2 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

One could argue that the fractional percentage of people being taxed at this rate are under represented, wouldn't that make voting for such a thing unfair? If 99.5  percent of people have nothing to lose by it of course they are not against it. 

So you are saying the hyper wealthy are underrepresented in Congress? That sure is news to me