Ocasio is right...the rich don’t pay their fair share....they pay more than their fair share
Printable View
Ocasio is right...the rich don’t pay their fair share....they pay more than their fair share
This is how my typical argument goes with a "raise taxes on the rich" leftist:
Leftist: We need to raise taxes on the rich! They aren't paying their fair share!
Me: Actually, they are already paying the highest tax rate AND they would be paying the most even on a flat tax rate, since their income is highest. How can you say they aren't paying enough?
Leftist: But there's so many loopholes! They're getting away with paying so little. We need to raise their tax rates in order to make up for the loopholes!
Me: Isn't that just punishing the rich people who DON'T use the loopholes? How about just eliminating the loopholes and going to a flat tax?
Leftist: A flat tax?? That's regressive and screws the poor!
Me: Okay, then how about a flat tax where the first 50k of income is tax free?
They usually don't have a response at that point.
Well, here is the response you should be hearing.
"How can you say they aren't paying enough?" Because the benefits of government go mostly to the rich. Their income & wealth is protected from crime by the police, foreign invasion by the army, contracts enforced by the courts (they have more to protect than the poor, working class, middle class, even upper middle). And quite often, the business interest of the rich are protected from economic competition by laws, regulation and tariffs.
As an example of this last point, consider something we all are here are quite familiar with, internet poker Sheldon Adelson and his kind---you really think he didn't influence/benefit from the federal law in 2006 and the fed govt Black Friday 2010 crackdown? (talk to Bryan Micon about that btw)
And then you mention flat tax? Well, because of the loopholes, the tax rates have always been much more flat than it appears. Indeed, even when we had top marginal tax rates of 90% (pre-Regan), the effective tax rate was much flatter. Rich folks with income from investment in municipal bonds (tax free interest), or dividend paying stocks (capital gains taxed as 15% flat), or oil (depletion allowances based on production, not investment) or real estate (year of accelerated depreciation) all escaped the higher tax rates. The Regan Tax Cut and Trump Cut lowered tax rates but also cut out many deductions---netting the effect of some of the rate cuts back toward revenue neutral.
so my claim is we've actually had a much flatter tax system than it appears, and the benefits of government are disproportionately skewed towards the high income/wealthy: that is unfair and the reason for increased rates on higher incomes.
black people be like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3YeIPi3sYQ
I feel like we have more of a spending problem rather than a need to tax more.
Hongkonger really needs to come back and comment even though I disagree with him most of the time.
Yea, I looked at that video again, her face seems to have had some work already, or maybe it's just me staring to hard.
In politics, looks are graded on a yuge curve, shes the equivalent of poker hot.
I looked at recent pictures of her.....sheesh....and she has no kids, I guess all that yoga and vegetarian diet is no match for bad genetics and horrible stress on the campaign trail...I'd still hit it tho...
I was wary/disagree with this broad already, but her bullshit politico stunt about not being able to afford rent in DC made up my mind for me that she is officially cuntarded.
Your answer doesn't make much sense if you stop and really think about what you wrote.
There will never be complete equality in utilization of government services. They are open to everyone, but certain services are only needed by certain segments of the population, large and small. Frequent drivers are benefited most by the roads. Frequent fliers are most benefited by airports. Business owners utilize the court system the most (though not always to their benefit!) Lower income people use social services and public transportation far more. I disagree with your claim about the military and law enforcement. Those organizations benefit everyone. In fact, law enforcement has a tougher and more important job in the lower class neighborhoods, due to higher crime. Most people in lily-white, upper-class neighborhoods rarely need the police. It is absurd to say that government services "mostly benefit the rich", so therefore they should pay more.
But they are paying more, anyway! The top 20% of income earners are shouldering the vast majority of income tax revenue. Isn't that enough? I'm not arguing that the rich should pay the same amount as the poor. I'm arguing that they should pay the same percentage.
You're correct that Reagan and Trump's tax cuts also came with some loophole eliminations. Funny enough, Clinton's tax hikes actually came with the return of some Reagan-eliminated loopholes (I'm guessing due to special interest influence). But what's your point? It looks like you're trying to claim that the Reagan/Trump changes resulted in a flatter tax, but that doesn't mean the rich aren't paying their fair share. Again, raising marginal tax rates just punishes those who don't have legal ways to dodge taxes.
The left wants to raise taxes on the rich simply because they have always loved taxing the rich, and the "rich people are dodging taxes so we need to tax them more" line of reasoning is just an excuse to soak the rich for more money. They aren't really interested in eliminating the loopholes and making the overall tax rate more fair. Most of them would be thrilled to see the super-rich taxed at 90% again. It's insane and unfair.
I am not a fan of AOC or leftism in general. That being said, she is very correct the very wealthy (including corporations) receive the most "govt assistance/welfare" in our current system. Everything is completely rigged for them so they proportionately get the most benefits for putting proportionately the least in. In fact, that is pretty much how pure capitalism is designed to work.
That being said, given how fluid borders are in our globalist economy and how easy it would be for wealthy persons/corporations to just relocate, I don't see how legislating them to pay more into the system would be implemented effectively.
Am I wrong?
Do you think it's possible that an elected member of Congress would be broke and unable to afford housing in DC?
Are there even any documented cases in recent decades of a Congressperson doing favors for lobbyists who simply gave them cheap housing? I don't believe it.
I just explained in other posts why that's not true.
There's indeed a lot of corruption where big corporations influence politicians to do favors for them, but to state that the entire government is a servant to the wealthy is a huge reach.
There's also the issue that large corporations create a lot of jobs, especially in the local areas where they reside, so the government does actually have a legitimate reason to provide them some accommodations.
Often people overlook the fact that, for every wildly successful corporation, there are many which attempted to get there and failed, leaving investors with nothing to show for it. There needs to be a substantial reward for taking a risk and succeeding, or otherwise everyone is going to be afraid to take the risks involved with starting a business or investing in an up-and-coming corporation.
The real answer to a lot of this involves a crackdown on a lot of the lobbying and closing a lot of the tax loopholes.
Sadly, neither party really wants to do this, and the few politicians that do have too many other crazy ideas, to where everything they say basically gets dismissed as nonsense.
Before you ascribe a sophisticated message and intent to AOC, remember that she's the one who said that unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs, and that people dying earlier is expensive because we have to pay for their funerals.
How can anyone take this chick seriously after statements like that?
honestly tho the real treasure in this thread is watching PFA's 'fiscal conservatives' shitpost about how outrageous the AOC marginal tax rate proposition is, because by all appearances none of them know what a marginal tax rate actually is.
uhhhhh respectfully generalized snarky statements are like my brand?
Well, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with what economists refer to as utility and surplus value.
But as you acknowledge, there is never equality in use/benefit from government services. My claim is the rich benefit far greater because of the protection government affords them--the direct type: police, fire, food purity, etc; and hidden types: barriers to direct competition through licensing, tariffs, regulation, etc--gives them more surplus value than poorer persons (more utility per dollar). In my opinion, graduating the tax rates more closely matches the benefit received/distributed (surplus value) to the tax (price) paid than does a flat tax system.
I don't expect you to agree.
okay, use marginal utility or unit of satisfaction per units of spending power
by your reaction I doubt you've taken econ 155 (econ 1 at a JC)...that's okay, its not required for you to be a success in you field and have a good life...but you would have trouble understanding my arguments
Of course he wouldn’t agree. His ridiculous argument that rich neighborhoods don’t need police as much as poor ones ignores the fact that police are much more responsive to 911 calls in rich neighborhoods than poor ones because their likely to face more political heat from richer residents.
Also, people who don’t “look” like they belong there are much more likely to be harassed by the police in wealthier neighborhoods versus in poor ones. Shit! Philandro Castile was stopped over 40 times over a two year period for apparently minor traffic violations driving through a predominantly white upper middle class neighborhood that was on his commuting route to his library job before he ended up getting shot to death by a chicken shit cop there. When was the last time you heard of such harassment by the police of a white guy in a poor black neighborhood?
mumbles has had at least 5 blowjobs from truck stop black chicks so he knows
This is unexpected:
America’s “ruling class,” Carlson says, are the “mercenaries” behind the failures of the middle class — including sinking marriage rates — and “the ugliest parts of our financial system.” He went on: “Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.”
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/10/181719...tism-trump-gop
You GOP RW whack job's are making a bigger deal out of her, than the DEM's are.
FYI, old white guy trolls are no problem for her.
Say what you want, she wants to "Legalize it" , in fact hired a pro marijuana politico.
and wants MOC's salary's tied to the shutdown.
Less than a month in, name someone in congress who walks the walk more than that? I'm still learning about her, but those are 2 big pluses, IMO.
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/cong...enior-advisor/
The former director of federal policy for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) has joined the staff of newly sworn-in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as a senior counsel and policy advisor.
Dan Riffle, who most recently served as communications director to former Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and a legislative aide to former Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), will bring his expertise on health care and tax reform to the freshman congresswoman’s team at a time when her proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate is dominating headlines.
i read a great piece about how women of color especially are basically torn down if they succeed but refuse to frame their success as 'the system works and everything is fine'. like if they stand up and use their position to put a spotlight on injustice they are essentially slandered as entitled/demanding/etc.
basically the playbook for all the hysterical pearl clutching being focused on her right now.
a considerable portion of which, btw, is coming from the mainstream/centerist left.
The spotlight is on her because of how she says things, not what she is saying in particular.
I personally have been bombarded with socialist dystopian platitudes since I was in elementary, so I'm very familiar with someone my age propagating their indoctrinated spiel.
In Alexandrias case, I feel, and have felt like the "criticism" from the center left is a bit contrived.
What I mean by that is, for years i have watch the Democrats preach and propagate the same bullshit that AOC is saying, so why the big fuss? Well what we are witnessing is the unraveling of years worth of lies, back stabbing and deceit, and just down right treason. We are witnessing a factional split in the Democratic party, one of many, but a major one at that. That split is between the socialist that have always been on the fringe of the party, and the Clinton cult....like its literally a cult.....real talk....
At this point, you have all the Hillary sycophants that have done her bidding, all watching everything about to crumble, so how do you solve a political crisis? Become President... hence the laughable mention of Hillary running again.
Problem is that the Hillary cult pretty much exposed themselves, and got exposed, everyone was able to see just how much of a stranglehold they had on the party.
So, now you have a weakened Hillary cult, emboldened Bernie bros who are still pissed off at 2016, and an upcoming void in power when the cult of Hillary takes its final death blow.
All the black mail in the world won't stop the her downfall.
I think the criticism from the leftist media is coming from libtards that are still loyal to Hillary, probably because they are or still feel pressured to do so as Hillary is really considering a run.
Hillary is really a crony capitalist in liberal clothing if you judged her by her actions, I guess what makes her "liberal" is her views on the second amendment and abortion, oh and wanting zero free speech.
So with AOC I think we are watching a person that really has swallowed the socialist kool aid, very much like Bernie Sanders in his younger age, hence she is a threat to someone that will say anything that polls high just to get into power, I think for now, we really do have a true blue socialist in AOC, but also someone who isn't in the Hillary cult, so she's deemed as a threat, so how do you deal with her without causing a major rift and risk losing the little power you have left? Well you do what the Clintons have always done, you let other people say it for you
:lol4
I'm generally a very good judge of character. I was the first to callout “kilgore trout” as a total and utter fraud. I was the first to call “4Dragons” an absolute creep, while many of you were polishing his knob for substandard photoshops. Point being I know what im talking about and you shouldn’t question me.
Now with that being said, Alexandria ocasio-cortez gives me the creeps. She seems like an absolute sociopath, and this is coming from someone who is rather open-minded and liberal. It bothers me when I see a youngish politician, or any politician for that matter, pander to the lowest common denominator, a la Trump to poor whites. And yet Cortez’ policies will almost certainly damage this country much more than Trump’s policies. This country needs to continue to foster pro-capitalistic policies that promote free markets, while rooting out crony capitalists (trumps achilles heel IMO) and avoid foreign intervention when possible.
Anyways, when I see politicians begin to livestream on social media, major alarm bells begin going off in my head.
this is alway in the back of the mind of a capitalist with a conscience
let's keep the free market but only to a point where an elite class
cannot have rules in their favor
certainly not
well that fantasy is called regulation. Without regulation you got scum that will do whatever necessary to keep their revenue flowing regardless of the impact to society
take a look at organized crime. are they happy with regulations?
im not sure either of them are that crazy so im probably not the ideal target audience for this question.
i prefer sanders to her because i believe sanders has a broad spectrum understanding of what can and cant be changed and what should and should not be changed, and i think shes about 40 years from gaining that sort of clarity.
but on the other side of the aisle you literally have this shit:
so when people talk about 'damage' part of me wonders if they are worried about the tumor or the patient.
She demonstrates a masterful use of social media. This concerns you? No shit. Trump/Parscale did the same.
Crazy plays on Facebook kid. America eats this shit up.
So, yes, you are required reading here but on this matter you are waaaay behind the curve.
Warren has that crazy look too. Look out. The Pocahontas schtick is actually well played.
TINE PREFERS SANDERS BECAUSE THEY ARE LITERALLY THE SAME AGE
Yes they did eat it up. From what I hear Facebook etc...are a lesson.
Follow that path, which the next generation is not want to do, and you do so at your own peril.
It comes down to being duped or not. No one wants to admit they've been duped but there is a long line starting in the U.S.