Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[monsterj]

The reason for the better-than-expected support of the 70% tax rate is that most of the US population is now too young to remember the general public opposition to such a high rate in the late '70s. Even people 50 years old today are likely too young to have been aware (or cared) about tax rates at that time.

Reagan won so soundly in 1980 largely because of a then-growing distrust and frustration with govenrment, taxes, inflation, and unsuccessful foreign policy.

Reagan first lowered the top rate from 70% to 50%, and then a few years later, dropped it from 50% to 28%.

There was general support for both of these moves.

Today, the left is using public concern over health care and increasing housing expenses to wage a class war against the super wealthy.

The basic premise is simple: Vilify a tiny percentage of the country, and use the basic human nature of jealousy and resentment to gain support.

That's why we're now seeing a new tactic -- a war not just on high income, but on wealth in general. Elizabeth Warren announced she wants a tax on existing wealth for the very rich. Sounds like double taxation to me.

On Facebook, I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric from my usual liberal "friends" stating that the country has a crisis of "hoarding money" by the super wealthy, which is funny when you think about it, because they're basically vilifying people for doing well and saving their money. Now apparently you're evil if you do that. If you make a fortune, you're expected to re-invest it and keep the money constantly at risk? I don't get it.

But it's a pretty effective tactic, as long as there's not a backlash at the time being against big government (which right now there isn't).

"Hey, you! Are you worried about expensive healthcare? Expensive housing? Expensive college? Well, guess what? We can solve all of that, if we just make the super wealthy pay a bit more. After all, they have more money than they'll ever need, but they're just sitting on it like a bunch of selfish kings and queens. We can't allow that anymore. It's time to start making these people pay their fair share, and allow the government to afford to help out good, hardworking Americans like you!"

Never mind whether this is fair, ethical, or will actually help the economy.

Mind you, the super-rich are already the ones responsible for a surprisingly high percentage of tax revenues in this country. When does a tax rate become too high?

If you support 70%, why not 80%? Why not 90%? Why not 99%? After all, they're super rich and can afford it, right?

In fact, why don't we just take all of their wealth beyond, say $5 million, and use it to fund health care and free college. Nothing wrong with that, right?

It becomes too high when people don't want to make anymore money.

[MrTickle]

Slippery slope is druff's argument against literally any change. So reactionary.

[gimmick]

Slippery slope is druff's argument against literally any change. So reactionary.

It's a fallacy. It has no value in any argument. You can use it as a point for either side of the argument.

It's slippery slope if we allow the use of slippery slopes. It's a slippery slope if we deny the use of slippery slopes.

Completely worthless.

[MumblesBadly]

It's a fallacy. It has no value in any argument. You can use it as a point for either side of the argument.

It's slippery slope if we allow the use of slippery slopes. It's a slippery slope if we deny the use of slippery slopes.

Completely worthless.

[sonatine]

no money: tax fucking everybody except me, seriously. i dont really care, but watching people not worry about where rent/food is coming from is getting offensive.

new money: [ literally any post by druff where he trots out the 'where do you draw the line' reactionary nonsense ]

old money: yeah we dont really care if you tax us 99% because no matter what you do, we will find a way to deduct enough to accrue more wealth.

actual functional government: we are going to allow old money to slither through their tax deduction loopholes because all these billionaires leave their wealth in the economy, which is great for everyone.

[MrTickle]

Compared to other US politicians, I think AOC is great. But obviously that's not saying much.

My problem with AOC is that she's just another tax-and-spend liberal. Left of centre is not "left", its centre-left. Unfortunately the US has no truly mainstream left wing politicians. She's useful in some ways (she agitates liberals and conservaties) and she has some good narrative about the working class but ultimately she's still just a liberal with some serious blindspots when it comes to US foreign policy, as seen recently with Venezuela.

People who believe in the Overton Window say she's useful for helping it go left, but in the end she's a social democrat and not a socialist.

It's laughable that so many right wingers are scared she's gonna be the leader of some sort of revolution but she's not revolutionary minded at all. Same problem with Bernie, really.

Ulitmately if you're a conservative OR a liberal in the USA, I wouldn't worry that she's gonna make any significant change.

If you're socialist/communist/marxist in the USA, prepare to be disappointed (again).

[MumblesBadly]

no money: tax fucking everybody except me, seriously. i dont really care, but watching people not worry about where rent/food is coming from is getting offensive.

new money: [ literally any post by druff where he trots out the 'where do you draw the line' reactionary nonsense ]

old money: yeah we dont really care if you tax us 99% because no matter what you do, we will find a way to deduct enough to accrue more wealth.

actual functional government: we are going to allow old money to slither through their tax deduction loopholes because all these billionaires leave their wealth in the economy, which is great for everyone.

Except they don’t. At least not in the domestic economy. For example...



Two points if you can guess which US super rich guy commissioned this super yacht *and* where it was built.

[GrenadaRoger]

Except they don’t. At least not in the domestic economy. For example...



Two points if you can guess which US super rich guy commissioned this super yacht *and* where it was built.

the name of the yacht is "the Maltese Falcon", it is/was the world's largest privately owned sailing yacht, it was built for Thomas Perkins who made his fortune with Hewlett Packard & as a partner in a venture capital firm. It was built in Istanbul

[duped_samaritan]

[TheXFactor]

It becomes too high when people don't want to make anymore money.

For the really rich, super wealthy people, the more they make, the less they pay in taxes.

In 1992, When Bill Clinton was elected President, the 400 highest earning taxpayers in America paid nearly 27 percent of their income in federal taxes.

By 2012, When President Barack Obama was re-elected that figure had fallen to less than 17 percent.

By the time that Donald Trump is thrown out of office the top wealthy people in America will pay zero in taxes but complain that the top tax rate is 37% which of course they don't pay.

[Dan Druff]

LOL at Mr. Tickle saying that AOC is "centre-left".

This guy is such a caricature of a Euro leftist.

Anyway, at least he admits that she's a "tax and spend liberal".

[Dan Druff]

no money: tax fucking everybody except me, seriously. i dont really care, but watching people not worry about where rent/food is coming from is getting offensive.

new money: [ literally any post by druff where he trots out the 'where do you draw the line' reactionary nonsense ]

old money: yeah we dont really care if you tax us 99% because no matter what you do, we will find a way to deduct enough to accrue more wealth.

actual functional government: we are going to allow old money to slither through their tax deduction loopholes because all these billionaires leave their wealth in the economy, which is great for everyone.

This is a dumb take for so many reasons.

Even if "actual functional government" worked that way (which it doesn't), it's disturbing that you'd be advocating such a thing.

What we really need is a coherent, fair and transparent tax policy with fewer loopholes and more equitable payments within each income class.

What we don't need is an attack on wealth, protection of "old money", or a huge jack-up of the top rate in order to counteract the unfair benefit some rich people derive from certain loopholes.

The Democrats are now engaging in outright class warfare, and worse than I've ever seen before, at least in my lifetime.

[JimmyG_415]

Ouch, this has to hurt,
while the RW trolls that Druff follows, are blasting OAC for stupid shit, like her feet,
she is turning their viewers against them.



Fox News Poll: Voters favor taxing the wealthy, increasing domestic spending

Voters prefer increasing spending on domestic programs over cutting taxes and reducing spending, and their preferred way to finance that spending -- is tax the wealthy.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox...estic-spending

[sonatine]

Ouch, this has to hurt,
while the RW trolls that Druff follows, are blasting OAC for stupid shit, like her feet,
she is turning their viewers against them.



Fox News Poll: Voters favor taxing the wealthy, increasing domestic spending

Voters prefer increasing spending on domestic programs over cutting taxes and reducing spending, and their preferred way to finance that spending -- is tax the wealthy.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox...estic-spending

and this is exactly what the big showdown meeting with pence and mcconnell and the rest of the GOP was about; trump is not reading the room. its a new day. there is a new crop of social activist dems who are talking about improving the quality of life for poor white trash; aka the beating heart of the GOP.

a government shutdown over nothing but a gimmick that was created to give him something to focus on when hyping immigration should have happened in early 2017. doing it while AOC has a mic and a spotlight? absolutely suicidal.

[blake]

Ouch, this has to hurt,
while the RW trolls that Druff follows, are blasting OAC for stupid shit, like her feet,
she is turning their viewers against them.



Fox News Poll: Voters favor taxing the wealthy, increasing domestic spending

Voters prefer increasing spending on domestic programs over cutting taxes and reducing spending, and their preferred way to finance that spending -- is tax the wealthy.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox...estic-spending

who would have thought that people like getting their stuff paid for by other people?

i'm shocked by these results

[Dan Druff]

who would have thought that people like getting their stuff paid for by other people?

i'm shocked by these results

Also a Fox news poll isn't of Fox News viewers.

It's a general population poll performed by Fox News.

[MrTickle]

LOL at Mr. Tickle saying that AOC is "centre-left".

This guy is such a caricature of a Euro leftist.

Anyway, at least he admits that she's a "tax and spend liberal".

She is centre-left. She doesn’t have a revolutionary bone in her body. Socialism isn’t about taxation and handouts, it’s about stopping the rich from having all the power. She doesn’t care about any of that. She’s a classic tax and spend liberal social democrat and she’s centre-left. Calling her left is just factually incorrect. She’s better than what you’ve got but if she’s left wing then I’m Karl Marx.

[sonatine]

[GrenadaRoger]

no they wouldn't kill foreign leaders; they're too busy killing their own ordinary citizens: Stalin 20 million, Mao 18 - 50 million, and Pol Pot lol only 1.6 million

[lol wow]

its high time to send sonatine and this millennial 4 to venezuela