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

[Delusional Aura 5,129]

2 hours ago, Varys said:

 

 

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

I don't think the tax rate is 70% though...i'll check more on it. However, regardless of what is being taxed, 70% is too much. The government has no right to take more than 50%. If you want the poor to be treated better, hold politicians and elected officials responsible for mismanagement of state funds collected. Europe and US will literally take 15 years to build one bridge while china will take 5 years to build the same for 1/5 the cost. I will say it again, hold political officials responsible for mismanagement of state funds. It blows my mind how people can't see that politicians are the main problem here not the rich.

Instead of her stupid 70% tax recommendation, why didn't she rant and scream for the pentagon to be audited to determine how its money given by the government is spent (They spend over 1 trillion of the F-35progtamme and the plane is literal crap). The pentagon has not been audited in over a decade. Someone above stated that the US spends more per person in healthcare than anywhere in the world yet people still suffer. Again poor management of funds. Taxing the rich to make more money will not fix corrupt politicians and their financial retardation.

[Varys 30,916]

10 minutes ago, Delusional Aura said:

I don't think the tax rate is 70% though...i'll check more on it. However, regardless of what is being taxed, 70% is too much. The government has no right to take more than 50%. If you want the poor to be treated better, hold politicians and elected officials responsible for mismanagement of state funds collected. Europe and US will literally take 15 years to build one bridge while china will take 5 years to build the same for 1/5 the cost. I will say it again, hold political officials responsible for mismanagement of state funds. It blows my mind how people can't see that politicians are the main problem here not the rich.

Instead of her stupid 70% tax recommendation, why didn't she rant and scream for the pentagon to be audited to determine how its money given by the government is spent (They spend over 1 trillion of the F-35progtamme and the plane is literal ****). The pentagon has not been audited in over a decade. Someone above stated that the US spends more per person in healthcare than anywhere in the world yet people still suffer. Again poor management of funds. Taxing the rich to make more money will not fix corrupt politicians and their financial retardation.

the usa and china take fifteen years to build a bridge because they are democratic which means that things go slower because people can protest projects and ...

china builds the bridge in 5 years because they treat they workers as slaves who work they and night and at a lower cost because they don't pay them enough

but agree that politicians and mismanagement are a problem

[Petrichor 4,640]

21 hours ago, hankhatesyouall said:

Taxation is theft. The federal income tax should be abolished. 
 

 

How is taxation theft, you nitwit? If you want to live in a country that provides you with security and access to its economy that enables you to be in its highest tax bracket, you are indebted to the country for those opportunities. We don’t pay taxes for nothing, pal. We’re merely paying our dues and funding our government. If you don’t like it, start your own sovereign nation and see how that goes. Good luck existing longer than a day.

[Delusional Aura 5,129]

4 hours ago, Varys said:

the usa and china take fifteen years to build a bridge because they are democratic which means that things go slower because people can protest projects and ...

china builds the bridge in 5 years because they treat they workers as slaves who work they and night and at a lower cost because they don't pay them enough

but agree that politicians and mismanagement are a problem

Okay, I'm sincerely sorry. I didn't know she tweeted this. With regards to china, I agree to am extend. However, they have brought 800 million people out of poverty im 40 years. This is something no country has done ever and will ever be able to do. You mentioned the Us democratic process is a one reason for everything moving slow, which I agree, don't you think its time to revise the political system in the US? My personal opinion is that the US is too big to have a democracy. While it gives this false sense of the people having the power, it divides us always between the left hating the right and vice versa; there won't ever be unity amongst us no matter what. We can't ever have long term plans and strategy the way china does because the president only have two 4 year terms. Our only long term plan is useless wars in the middle east ( I'm still trying to understand how are we protecting our boarders in other countries 6000 miles away). We are now in a time where we can't take forever for something to be accepted in congress because our competition, china could do the very same thing in the blink of an eye. Which will make china more powerful in the future due to ease of decision making.

[Varys 30,916]

23 minutes ago, Delusional Aura said:

Okay, I'm sincerely sorry. I didn't know she tweeted this. With regards to china, I agree to am extend. However, they have brought 800 million people out of poverty im 40 years. This is something no country has done ever and will ever be able to do. You mentioned the Us democratic process is a one reason for everything moving slow, which I agree, don't you think its time to revise the political system in the US? My personal opinion is that the US is too big to have a democracy. While it gives this false sense of the people having the power, it divides us always between the left hating the right and vice versa; there won't ever be unity amongst us no matter what. We can't ever have long term plans and strategy the way china does because the president only have two 4 year terms. Our only long term plan is useless wars in the middle east ( I'm still trying to understand how are we protecting our boarders in other countries 6000 miles away). We are now in a time where we can't take forever for something to be accepted in congress because our competition, china could do the very same thing in the blink of an eye. Which will make china more powerful in the future due to ease of decision making.

The usa became the most powerful nation on earth due to democracy and Im not discussing with someone who doesn't believe in  democracy or freedom because it takes longer to do things

You and me are so lucky to be Born in a part of the word that is free and wealthy but you don't appreciate and thats sad

im done talking to you because you just undermined every valid point you made  

[Ziggy 14,050]

7 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

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.

I hope you know I’m in favor of this. But you referenced internationally and then the Reagan era. I’m saying right now in America this would be considered radical in the current national political climate and thus doesn’t have a chance to pass because, as you said, nothing a democrat does will get passed but most especially something like this. I think it would be great and am fully aware of the things you’re referring to, but I’m saying relative to the immediate American political climate this is considered extreme if only because the “70%” number is there and not because of what that number translates to fundamentally.

Again, I agree with everything you’re saying and do not dispute the value of the bill. What I’m saying is that it will be perceived as extreme. If Obamacare and Dodd Frank got coal raked and are both heavy compromises then this would get a shellacking like no other from American conservatives.

[Ziggy 14,050]

7 hours ago, Varys said:

 

 

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

Sorry, maybe I was unclear. I mean that the 70% number will scare people into thinking it’s what you said it isn’t. Obamacare is the socialist lightning rod for conservatives and that’s a big compromise of a bill that still barely passed. I can’t imagine the optics that this would get from Fox and the like. I mean it would be considered extreme, not actually.

[Varys 30,916]

4 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

Sorry, maybe I was unclear. I mean that the 70% number will scare people into thinking it’s what you said it isn’t. Obamacare is the socialist lightning rod for conservatives and that’s a big compromise of a bill that still barely passed. I can’t imagine the optics that this would get from Fox and the like. I mean it would be considered extreme, not actually.

Oops im sorry I misunderstood that 

yeah the press will likly spin that

Luckily Im from europe where the press isn't so out of control (yet) and report facts

I feel like the news in the usa is just people reporting what they like  shouting opinions

[uo111 5,282]

16 hours 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.

You mean Beyonce will only have 400 million rather than over a billion and everyone will have healthcare, quality education and great infrastructure. Sounds terrible!

And how will Beyonce live? I guess she will just stop singing cause making only 400 million isn’t worth her effort.

Let’s not even bring up the fact that personal income tax has nothing to do with business profits, so this won’t effect businesses almost at all. The idea that people will just stop working is so ludicrous it’s almost like it came from fox news. 

[Ziggy 14,050]

3 hours ago, Varys said:

Oops im sorry I misunderstood that 

yeah the press will likly spin that

Luckily Im from europe where the press isn't so out of control (yet) and report facts

I feel like the news in the usa is just people reporting what they like  shouting opinions

Yes, it very much is hahaha Even CNN which liberals tend to like is Trump 24/7 and pundit speculation. It's a bit much even for someone as terrible as he is. A lot goes through the cracks when you only focus on one lone topic (i.e. Fox News lol)

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

3 hours ago, uo111 said:

You mean Beyonce will only have 400 million rather than over a billion and everyone will have healthcare, quality education and great infrastructure. Sounds terrible!

And how will Beyonce live? I guess she will just stop singing cause making only 400 million isn’t worth her effort.

Let’s not even bring up the fact that personal income tax has nothing to do with business profits, so this won’t effect businesses almost at all. The idea that people will just stop working is so ludicrous it’s almost like it came from fox news. 

I would say  it's too risky to mess with Beyonce  . 

Jay-Z  might clobber ya...😎

[Economy 52,861]

On 1/4/2019 at 10:43 AM, 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...

This wouldn't work now

 

We are in a globalized economy now where companies can shift operations and investments much more easily now it is no longer an economy that is mostly domestic

 

A tax that high would discourage entrepreneurship and investment and impoverish America in no time as economic activity started leaving to other nations

 

U would need every other Nation to do this as well in order for it to work so corporations had no where to run to

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

12 minutes ago, Economy said:

This wouldn't work now

 

We are in a globalized economy now where companies can shift operations and investments much more easily now it is no longer an economy that is mostly domestic

 

A tax that high would discourage entrepreneurship and investment and impoverish America in no time as economic activity started leaving to other nations

 

U would need every other Nation to do this as well in order for it to work so corporations had no where to run to

Corporate America would relocate to tax havens or more cooperative countries. 

Telecommunications and logistics are vastly improved over 1950's so controlling operations can decentralize and claim just about anywhere as home for tax purposes.

More importantly, much of the western economies were intebuild and recovery with huge areas of infrastructure damage yet] to be repaired.  Military readiness also played a role as tensions with Russia could have escalated to open conflict.

Lastly, patriotism was much higher since the nation was United against the Nazi and Japanese threat. Anti communism was also a factor.  Higher tax rates weren't seen as  gov, spending too much, as it is today.z

[Varys 30,916]

17 minutes ago, Economy said:

This wouldn't work now

 

We are in a globalized economy now where companies can shift operations and investments much more easily now it is no longer an economy that is mostly domestic

 

A tax that high would discourage entrepreneurship and investment and impoverish America in no time as economic activity started leaving to other nations

 

U would need every other Nation to do this as well in order for it to work so corporations had no where to run to

But it is about porgressive income taxes where you tax the income in braskets not in the entire amount one percentage but is braskets and it is about income taxes not taxes on cooperations and such a progressive income tax already exsist in mant European countries so why wouldn't it work in the usa?

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

7 minutes ago, Varys said:

But it is about porgressive income taxes where you tax the income in braskets not in the entire amount one percentage but is braskets and it is about income taxes not taxes on cooperations and such a progressive income tax already exsist in mant European countries so why wouldn't it work in the usa?

You can't compare European systems to the us. Similarities are superficial. Small tightly controlled economies vs. a vastly independent and loosely regulated one.