Economy "Radical" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[spamking]

How many pay the 38% or whatever it is now?

Beats me . . . according to some in here apparently not enough.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

She's a kook and the scary thing is is that she's offering spoiled millenials everything for free.

I had to walk 5 miles to school, with holes in my sneakers, and it was uphill both ways. These whippersnappers need to toughen up and get with the program.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Lol you got me.

AOC is going to provide the laughs for years as we get to watch the right wing heads explode as she antagonizes them.

You know I was only half joking though, right? I think AOC is an absolutely stunning woman, in every sense of the word. She has that rare combination of soft, charming, maternal femininity and strong, no-holds-barred conviction.

 

[HockeyBjj]

I wonder if these Hollywood elite who throw so much support to candidates like this realise that they, too, are part of the "rich", and are going to be losing a fuck load off the top if one of these hardcore socialists get in?

Nah. Rich folk have all kinds of legal loopholes to hide income from taxes

Emma Watson being exposed in the Panama papers with all her offshore accounts is basically what they're all doing while telling us middle class plebs we need to accept our taxes going up to pay for free shit for others

 

[Seano]

What is she offering to millennials?

I didn't mean millenials specifically. I mean millenials are the ones who will buy into it.

 

[xcvbn]

I was born in a recession. You're a retard.

I'm sorry you struggled so much as an infant trying to find work and feed your family.

 

[Seano]

I'm sorry you struggled so much as an infant trying to find work and feed your family.

I'm sorry that you can't handle life like my generation could and need someone to do everything for you.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Some of us here are heterosexuals. And I have absolutely no beef with you personally or the gay community in general.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Beats me . . . according to some in here apparently not enough.

My point is that arguing that people didn't actually pay 90% back then, while not disputing that the wealthy don't pay their current tax rates either, seems to be an excellent argument for why the very wealthy's taxes should be much higher.

Let's set the rate at 70%, knowing they will only pay the 40% they are supposed to be paying now.

 

[xcvbn]

By 2030.....89% of our energy is something she doesn’t like. So she wants the remaining 11% to pick up all that slack by 2030....can’t wait for dat socialism tax and a halt to the American economy in 2030

I’m not even mad about that...How can she guevara even compare herself to JLo. Her ass is not even in the same ballpark

The American economy is already fucked. The middle class is gone. Neoliberalism/glabalism/corporate capitalism/whatever you wanna call it has already made sure of that.

Establishment Dems and Repubs are only interested in strengthening the donor class. What AOC is advocating for are the only proposals that even remotely address this issue, whether her intended outcome is realistic or not.

 

[spamking]

Some of us here are heterosexuals. And I have absolutely no beef with you personally or the gay community in general.

Ha . . . that gif wasn't intended for the comments about her rack or how attractive she is . . . she's not too bad from the neck down I guess.

 

[xcvbn]

I'm sorry that you can't handle life like my generation could and need someone to do everything for you.

Your generation that enjoyed the 70/80/90% tax on the wealthy. The very same thing you're in here bitching about.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I wonder if these Hollywood elite who throw so much support to candidates like this realise that they, too, are part of the "rich", and are going to be losing a fuck load off the top if one of these hardcore socialists get in?

It's a bit odd.

Rich is a relative term. You hear Jordan Peterson talk about where to drop the line as even middle class Americans are likely top whatever percent of the world.

I personally don't really care to target the 1%. I think the point .001% or something along those lines is right.

I mean, apparently the Forbes top 3 has the same wealth as the bottom 50% of the population.

So that means, of 162,000,003 people. 3 people have the wealth of 162,000,000. I have no issues around super high tax rates for those 3 people, or maybe something along the lines of mandatory charitable donation (how's that for an oxymoron).

 

[spamking]

My point is that arguing that people didn't actually pay 90% back then, while not disputing that the wealthy don't pay their current tax rates either, seems to be an excellent argument for why the very wealthy's taxes should be much higher.

Let's set the rate at 70%, knowing they will only pay the 40% they are supposed to be paying now.

The amount of deductions we can take seems to change annually or every few years . . . I'm sure folks will always find a way to deal with things via creative accounting.

All I know is that I've had to pay more each of the last 5-7 years. So as long as what I have to pay isn't significantly increased I don't really care what someone making upper 6 figures or more might have to pay to be quite honest.

 

[spamking]

Uh, okay . . . now the VA and public schooling are "radical" ideas.

 

[nac386]

I didn't mean millenials specifically. I mean millenials are the ones who will buy into it.

Millennials have an idealistic streak, that's true. But the whole "Millennials are so lazy/entitled/spoiled/etc" schtick that older generations pull is largely untrue. Millennials are going to be remembered as a generation that inherited a pretty awful situation and were very successful in spite of it. Baby boomers and Gen X did quite a bit of damage, and some of that idealism that Millennials show is a direct response to that.

Most of the Millennials that I know outwork and outperform the Generation X and aging baby boomers that they work with. I think that is a source of some of the hate they get.

 

[xcvbn]

100% fossil fuel removal is full retard. Plenty of power equipment is required in our society that requires fossil fuel. And not every american can go out and buy a tesla.

Like completely removing lead from daily used items, it should be a goal we strive for, even if today many products(and vital infrastructure) still contain lead.

There's actually some parallels today of 1900s pro-lead propaganda:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016...ory-of-the-politics-of-lead-poisoning/461871/

 

[VivaRevolution]

That is what the top 1% is paying now though. It ends up being near the same as back then, just different colorful base numbers. Raising their taxes I agree is needed, but is more delicate than it's given credit. For example-

the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGI of $480,930 and above), earned 20.65 percent of all AGI in 2015, but paid 39.04 percent of all federal income taxes.

In 2015, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $568 billion, or 39.04 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $428 billion, or 29.41 percent of all income taxes.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/

Not only just that, but the top 0.1% pays 19% of all taxes combined in the United States. You can't just throw out numbers like "70% tax rates" without context. It's a ridiculous amount.

Yes, that is a progressive tax system. It is necessary to keep capitalism from toppling over.

I don't care what % those people pay in federal income taxes.

The better question would be what % of income does a middle class person pay in total for all taxes of their income, verse the wealthy.

I really hate that % of federal income tax number. It is a prime example of cherry picked statistics that have no context, and even less relevance.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Like completely removing lead from daily used items, it should be a goal we strive for, even if today many products(and vital infrastructure) still contain lead.

There's actually some parallels today of 1900s pro-lead propaganda:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016...ory-of-the-politics-of-lead-poisoning/461871/

Its entirely possible to keep moving forward on higher MPG, more new electric vehicles etc over the decades. I fully support investment and development in renewables.

But we will be looking to a lot more than 12 years to remove us completely from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will always be around.

 

[kpt018]

Part of the major miss in the first part of her plan, which she may address elsewhere (or not) is that we are not going to make enough of an impact on climate change without getting countries like China, India, all of Europe, etc. on board. And that is going to require a complicated deal that gets all the incentives lined up in the right direction. You know, something like the TPP......(waiting for flaming posts). Maybe the Paris accord was a great first step.....(waiting for flaming posts).

It's important for America to be a leader on this front but we can't go it alone. However, I am all for strong steps towards this goal.

Question for the board since I'm not up to speed on her proposal, why is she proposing a top marginal rate of 60-70%? Is this intended to fund research or green energy? It may not be a bad idea.....(waiting for flaming posts).