Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New

[derpmonster 22,412]

Imagine being so delusional as the OP.

You think hard work is rewarded with success in anything more than the overwhelming minority of cases?

 

Don't know if you know but we live in a society™ mister. 

Out society is fine the way it is with taxes. Go live in your fantasy anarchist land and good luck making it work. 

By the way, what do you think about cops? The border?

[derpmonster 22,412]

38 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

I am amazed at the effective brainwashing that liberal media is....

 

Make all the good singers and performers who made 100 mil pay 90% tax and give it to all the artists who suck.

Spewing garbage when you don't even know what liberal means. 

Liberal is not progressive economic policy. Liberal is centrist. 

Leftism is different. 

You think only good singers and performers make 100 million? Explain all those bad famous performers

You think all good Singers and hard workers earn success? Delulu. A very very small minority do. It's a mix of hard work and luck that brings success. Most talented people don't even get the opportunities regardless of hard work. 

 

And no it's not about giving their income away Reactionaries are funny. It's about giving basic things like Healthcare to everyone which will only make the system more equitable for all. No one is asking 100mil earning performers to pay for anyone's luxuries. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

5 minutes ago, derpmonster said:

 

And no it's not about giving their income away Reactionaries are funny. It's about giving basic things like Healthcare to everyone which will only make the system more equitable for all. No one is asking 100mil earning performers to pay for anyone's luxuries. 

"Giving" ? Healthcare to all.

Considering the diverse needs ,income, life styles and corrupt mentality of those who seek to exploit, this utopian concept is un attainable. 

......

Obamacare actually helps,  remove the mandated penalty and take out some of the corrupt insurance bilking procedures practiced by hospitals and I would say we have a solid plan.

[Ziggy 14,051]

8 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

She's absolutely right and this is not an "extremist" position at all. We had much higher tax rates on the rich in the past and economists think we should tax the wealthy at a 90% tax rate (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/economists-tax-rich_n_6024430.html) (https://mic.com/articles/119630/bernie-sanders-wants-to-tax-the-rich-at-90-here-s-why-that-s-not-so-crazy#.eZGfvpRWl)

Right-wing fascism is on the rise because working class people have been disenfranchised by austerity over the past few decades. These a-historical right-wing takes on GagaDaily... embarrassing...

I mean, what is extreme vs not is relative. Presently, this is considered extreme and thus won’t pass. Would it be nice? Yeah, but it’s impractical since there’s no way in hell a 70% tax on the wealthy would pass.

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

3 hours ago, Delusional Aura said:

I agree but taxing someone above 50% of their profits is just flat out wrong regardless of how rich they are. You can have capitalist economies with socialist undertones like Norway, Finland, Sweden even Canada. But, it's not productive to tax anyone more than 50%.

Don't forget that Tax rates in the 50's USA had more to do with post WWII recovery and foreign aid to rebuilding Europe.

Currently the corrupt environment with large corporations buying congressional votes is more of the problem than the rates themselves.  The loopholes and incentives for special interest groups has the balance scale tilted way towards corporate wealth and totally shafts the middle class.

[Nemo 4,410]

1 hour ago, Woolfsmck said:

"Giving" ? Healthcare to all.

Considering the diverse needs ,income, life styles and corrupt mentality of those who seek to exploit, this utopian concept is un attainable.

FFS, it works all over the world, even as close as Canada.

[NotNightwing 1,710]

5 hours ago, Woolfsmck said:

"Giving" ? Healthcare to all.

Considering the diverse needs ,income, life styles and corrupt mentality of those who seek to exploit, this utopian concept is un attainable. 

......

Obamacare actually helps,  remove the mandated penalty and take out some of the corrupt insurance bilking procedures practiced by hospitals and I would say we have a solid plan.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK all have achieved it. They are the countries most similar to the US culturally. The US spends more on healthcare per citizen than any other country in the world BECAUSE of your corrupt system. If your politicians stopped taking bribes from and propping up insurance companies you could switch to a single payer system, achieve FREE healthcare for all citizens and STILL PAY LESS.

[NotNightwing 1,710]

In this thread.

Idiots that believe the world is a meritocracy.

People that don't understand that this is an tax for individuals NOT companies.

People who don't understand how tax brackets work and that everyone would still be taxed the same. You would only pay 70% on the money in the TOP BRACKET. Such as above 10 million. Every dollar below that would remain unchanged.

[dit 46,738]

That's way too much. The wealthy will also find ways to make sure this NEVER happens so I don't know why she is floating around empty unattainable promises like that. I generally find her to be ok but this is ludicrous.

[Othon 34,299]

6 hours ago, Ziggy said:

I mean, what is extreme vs not is relative. Presently, this is considered extreme and thus won’t pass. Would it be nice? Yeah, but it’s impractical since there’s no way in hell a 70% tax on the wealthy would pass.

I mean, it literally isn't though. Leftists and the left-wing of the Democratic party hav been pushing for something like this for decades. Internationally, much higher rates are the norm. When Ronald Reagan was elected president, one of the most conservative presidents we ever had, the income tax rate for the wealthiest of the wealthy was 70%, exactly what she's proposing. Around 100,000 families in America own 90% of the country's wealth while the rest of us live off of the remaining 10%. This is a ridiculously moderate proposal considering the level of wealth inequity in America. A position like this is only extreme to the right and to centrists because the Republican party and right-wing Democrats dragged the Overton window so far to the right over the last three decades via relentless austerity that anything outside of proposals to privatize social security and military budget increases is decried as communism. New York Magazine published a great article explaining why this is actually a moderate position: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-top-tax-rate-60-minutes-green-new-deal.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s1

If we're assessing whether something is extreme or not (or even viable policy) by looking at whether it'll pass in a split Congress with a Republican president, then there's no point in any of this. Nothing any Democrat proposes now is going to pass. We're trying to push leftist policy to the forefront and move the Overton window back in line with the rest of the world, where it belongs, so that the Democrats have a legitimately progressive set of ideals and principles to propose to the public and will fight for moral, intelligent change rather than capitulating to fascists on the right like they always do. History was never made by those focusing on incrementally needling at fundamentally broken systems; it's made by radicals. And this isn't even a radical position.

[Varys 30,916]

10 hours ago, Delusional Aura said:

I agree but taxing someone above 50% of their profits is just flat out wrong regardless of how rich they are. You can have capitalist economies with socialist undertones like Norway, Finland, Sweden even Canada. But, it's not productive to tax anyone more than 50%.

 

2 hours ago, dit said:

That's way too much. The wealthy will also find ways to make sure this NEVER happens so I don't know why she is floating around empty unattainable promises like that. I generally find her to be ok but this is ludicrous.

 

7 hours ago, Ziggy said:

I mean, what is extreme vs not is relative. Presently, this is considered extreme and thus won’t pass. Would it be nice? Yeah, but it’s impractical since there’s no way in hell a 70% tax on the wealthy would pass.

Its not 70 % on the entire income

it is an progressive income tax which means your income is taxed in brackets and for only for every dollar you make more than 10 millions dollar you would be taxed 70% not for the entire 10 million 

alot of countries in europe already have this system

[ode 1,534]

I don't care to wade thru y'alls DUMB AZZ opinions to see if this has already been said, but:

~70% tax on the super wealthy was the tax rate the USA had for A LONG TIME. during that time, our country's economy grew, and the rich still got richer. 

many of the economic problems we have now---not least of which is our massive deficit---began when we lowered the tax rate on corporations and the super rich.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

She's definitely too far left for more moderate democrats...

But I mean so am I, so I support this ideologically  

[Adakam 2]

16 hours ago, geopang said:

Just like Trump lives rent free inside the heads of leftist lunatics?

Well Hillary has lived rent free inside the heads of most republicans for decades. And shes not even President

[Emvee 8,832]

Politico is so hacky 

 

Just gonna leave this here:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/4/18168431/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent

 

ACTUAL HISTORICAL DATA that backs up this move.