Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[David Dennison 19543]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

I vote for 1960 when the United States was at its peak in terms of percentage of global GDP.

With 1960 tax brackets. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

I vote for 1960 when the United States was at its peak in terms of percentage of global GDP.

Just need another world war to destroy the economies of all the competition except us. 

[Buzzrock 15136]

So, Make America Great Again?

Zing!

[this 107]

 

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

With 1960 tax brackets. 

LOL are you sure? 

• In 1960, the top 1% of households earned 9% of all income, and paid 13% of all taxes. (In 2008, the top 1% earned 20% of all income, and paid 38% of all taxes.)

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/

In 2015, the top 1% of households earned 20.65% of all income, and paid 39% of all taxes. 

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

 

 

[Incredulity 11876]

16 minutes ago, this said:

 

LOL are you sure? 

• In 1960, the top 1% of households earned 9% of all income, and paid 13% of all taxes. (In 2008, the top 1% earned 20% of all income, and paid 38% of all taxes.)

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/

In 2015, the top 1% of households earned 20.65% of all income, and paid 39% of all taxes. 

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

 

 

Yes he is.  He is fully invested in the disingenuous tale of 90% top imcome tax rates.

[David Dennison 19543]

19 minutes ago, this said:

 

LOL are you sure? 

• In 1960, the top 1% of households earned 9% of all income, and paid 13% of all taxes. (In 2008, the top 1% earned 20% of all income, and paid 38% of all taxes.)

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/

In 2015, the top 1% of households earned 20.65% of all income, and paid 39% of all taxes. 

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

 

 

Yes. I am sure.

[this 107]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes. I am sure.

 You may want to maybe research things before taking a stand:

There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The graph below shows the average tax rate that the top 1 percent of Americans have faced over the last century. The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years.[2]

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.

All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3]

How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]

There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s.

• The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
• Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
• Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the top 1 percent.

All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.

 

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

[David Dennison 19543]

I'm fine with all of that. I'm not concerned with just the 1%.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm fine with all of that. I'm not concerned with just the 1%.

No you're not just concerned about the 1%, you're unhinged about the 1%. Hell, you're unhinged about anybody making more than $100k, and not paying 60-75% of that back in taxes.

[David Dennison 19543]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No you're not just concerned about the 1%, you're unhinged about the 1%. Hell, you're unhinged about anybody making more than $100k, and not paying 60-75% of that back in taxes.

That is incorrect.

[Tom 2960]

7 hours ago, this said:

You're the one with the coolstorybro, I was responding to another poster's claim that Apple doesn't pay any taxes. Even with 50% of "Ireland ownership" the company bought out will pay US taxes on US profits. No way to dodge them. 

You have no understanding of our tax structure you 9 to 5er, and you're mad that your wage is stagnated. You learn nothing new, you get paid for nothing new. 

Just so that you dumbasses are clear, in 2015(the latest tax foundation data that I can find) Apple paid nearly HALF as much in income taxes as the bottom 50% of this country. So the bottom half needs to STFU about fair share or pony up cash.

 

Yeah, nobody is impressed that you work the swing shift.  Sure, you get to sleep in, but I bet your social life suffers.  Go fuck yourself, you pretentious self-important piece of shit.

[RandomIdoit 739]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No you're not just concerned about the 1%, you're unhinged about the 1%. Hell, you're unhinged about anybody making more than $100k, and not paying 60-75% of that back in taxes.

Please tax me more because I went to school and landed a job in an in-demand field! 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That is incorrect.

Oh sorry my bad, 85%...  thanks....

[this 107]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm fine with all of that. I'm not concerned with just the 1%.

So you're OK with people hiding their money, us collecting less in taxes and spending more on IRS so that we can enforce those ridiculous rates? 

Gotcha. Your America sounds like a dream!

[David Dennison 19543]

Somebody needs a lesson on marginal v. effective tax rates.

Sheesh.

[this 107]

10 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

Yeah, nobody is impressed that you work the swing shift.  Sure, you get to sleep in, but I bet your social life suffers.  Go fuck yourself, you pretentious self-important piece of shit.

What you meant is "thank you you self important piece of shit" because I subsidize your ass. You're welcome you middle class piece of shit. 

[this 107]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Somebody needs a lesson on marginal v. effective tax rates.

Sheesh.

LOL, yes you do. Go read up and then get back to us.

[David Dennison 19543]

 

4 minutes ago, this said:

What you meant is "thank you you self important piece of shit" because I subsidize your ass. You're welcome you middle class piece of shit. 

Is this the part where you pretend you're rich?

[this 107]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

Is this the part where you pretend you're rich?

Its the internet, why not? And teach you that its the 1% that's subsidizing your ass. Not the other way around. Next time you see a one percenter, bow your  head and say thank you. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

10 minutes ago, this said:

LOL, yes you do. Go read up and then get back to us.

Who is us? The voices in your head don't count.

[David Dennison 19543]

7 minutes ago, this said:

Its the internet, why not? And teach you that its the 1% that's subsidizing your ass. Not the other way around. Next time you see a one percenter, bow your  head and say thank you. 

Because the Tax Foundation says so?

OK.

[this 107]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Because the Tax Foundation says so?

OK.

No, basic math does. 

[David Dennison 19543]

4 minutes ago, this said:

No, basic math does. 

Sure.

[Tom 2960]

44 minutes ago, this said:

What you meant is "thank you you self important piece of shit" because I subsidize your ass. You're welcome you middle class piece of shit. 

Details, please.  I love to hear from those in my industry.  Tell everyone exactly what I do and how you subsidize me.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Tom

[Anastasis 23721]

This thread is consistently the biggest dumpster fire on this board. It’s like a rotating carousel of douchbaggery.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This thread is consistently the biggest dumpster fire on this board. It’s like a rotating carousel of douchbaggery.

You're giving them too much credit.

[Grandioso 2592]

This thread is consistently the biggest dumpster fire on this board. It’s like a rotating carousel of douchbaggery.

You showed up to round it out, though. You and your wry, detached Anastasis “blecch.” I’m going to steal your silverware.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anastasis 23721]

27 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

 

You showed up to round it out, though. You and your wry, detached Anastasis “blecch.” I’m going to steal your silverware.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Anastasis

[markstanco 12790]

This thread is consistently the biggest dumpster fire on this board. It’s like a rotating carousel of douchbaggery.

Sorry not sorry for starting the thread. I knew it would be comedy.

[Chad Fuck 18135]

Sorry not sorry for starting the thread. I knew it would be comedy.

Troof.

Wish it had more pics though.

[Js1 87186]

18 pages for a soon-to-be-freshman-House-member-who-actually-hasn't-been-elected-yet just so the conservitards could spew their manufactured outraged talking points about socialism. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

18 pages for a soon-to-be-freshman-House-member-who-actually-hasn't-been-elected-yet just so the conservitards could spew their manufactured outraged talking points about socialism. 

It’s already surpassed the Hillary thread and that’s saying something 

[Incredulity 11876]

no endorsement from Barry.

 

[Js1 87186]

Obama only endorsed swing districts and seats.  This district voted for Hillary by 58 points.  She might as well start picking out which office she wants in one of Cannon, Longworth or Rayburn.

[Anastasis 23721]

 

 

 

https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-bronx-sf-mission-district-13120878.php

 

Fresh off the heels of a Democratic congressional primary win in New York, politician and organizer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will make be in San Francisco's Mission District this evening for two fundraising events. 

Ocasio-Cortez is first set to appear at 7 p.m. at The Assembly at 449 14th St. Available tickets for the event run between $500 and $2,700. 

...

Although Ocasio-Cortez hails from New York, Shandi Singh, co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America's San Francisco chapter, said many people in the Bay Area are very interested in hearing what she has to say. 

"San Francisco is considered a bastion of progressiveness in America, yet we're dealing with an exacerbation of the same problems," Singh said. "We should listen to what this young woman of color has to say ... it speaks volumes that her message resonates here." 

The response to the 7:30 p.m. event has been so great that organizers were forced to move it at the last minute from the El Rio bar to the Gray Area/Grand Theater. Between 400 and 500 people are expected to attend the sold-out event. 

While event-goers are being asked to donate toward Ocasio-Cortez's campaign, no one will be turned away for lack of funds, Singh said. 

"It's really a great opportunity to get plugged in on what's going on in this city," she said, adding that several Bay Area activists will attend and speak. "You're going to have the city's best and brightest here tonight." 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Anastasis

[bad_teammate 13524]

[Incredulity 11876]

[Bateshorn 9991]

I wish I cared about anything as much as certain people on this page care about *checks notes* the Democratic nominee for the New York 14th Congressional District.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Can someone explain this one to me?

It’s a critique on people that do nothing but pontificate on the internet while the people that actually care are the ones out doing something.

[Anastasis 23721]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s a critique on people that do nothing but pontificate on the internet while the people that actually care are the ones out doing something.

Can you frame that as a tweet?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Back off man

[Huckleberry 34662]

It’s a critique on people that do nothing but pontificate on the internet while the people that actually care are the ones out doing something.

That's not it at all. It's mocking the people who claim you can't criticize something if you participate in the current system.  

So if an elderly person criticizes Social Security but has a logical argument against the current setup then idiots will dismiss the argument. Or if a recent college graduate complains about corporate pay structures while working for a large corporation they get dismissed by that idiotic argument.

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

You’re probably right

[Mojo Hand 4580]

13 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So the guy coming out of the well is an internet poster, and the serf is someone who wants change but also works toward that in real life.

i get that, but why the dialogue of the internet poster, is it absurdist/non-sequiter humor?

Cartoons are like gossamer, and one doesn't dissect gossamer.   It's merely a commentary on contemporary mores. 

[Grandioso 2592]

It's a common fallacious argument and a lazy ad hominem attack.

'You're a socialist yet you make money - your argument is invalid."

"Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine is rich and lives in Beverly HIlls, ergo, his opinions are invalid."

[hayden_horn 11402]

17 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

It's a common fallacious argument and a lazy ad hominem attack.

'You're a socialist yet you make money - your argument is invalid."

"Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine is rich and lives in Beverly HIlls, ergo, his opinions are invalid."

but tom morello is completely hypocritical in that he sings about rolling down rodeo with a shotgun whilst actually living in beverly hills. not the best example, i reckon.

[Incredulity 11876]

It’s a slice of life.

[David Dennison 19543]

Are we sure Tom lives in Beverly Hills?

[hayden_horn 11402]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Are we sure Tom lives in Beverly Hills?

i have no idea, but i was using that hypothetical as an actual critique. that would actually be entirely disingenuous of tom if that were the case. it's a little different than the corporate schlub (me) complaining about corporate america cares more about quarterly results than long term strategy. 

[Rimbo 27030]

17 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

But how are those opinions valid(in the TM example above if the example is he's advocating against being rich and comfortable because there are too many poor people), in the sense they are neutral and honest and of integrity, if they are in obvious contrast to the actions of the one stating the opinion? Unless getting rich is done in irony or something?

I think there's a pretty obvious difference between the poor person who criticizes corporate structure and yet works for a corporation, or the political person who despises the system yet participates it, and -- for example -- a wealthy person criticizing the system by which he/she became wealthy.

The typical anti-corporate person who works for a corporation is working for that corporation because it is the only way to survive, and it is by exposure to that corporate system that their opinion is informed. By the same token, that person can work for change from within, as much as possible.

The same is true for someone who criticizes the very political system she participates in. By participating, she learns more about the system, and can try to effect as much good change as possible from within the system's limitations.

An extremely wealthy person opposing wealth inequality is not entirely in the same position. I'm not necessarily speaking about Tom Morello, because I don't know his politics in detail; I do think it's sufficient to say that being Socialist and being Communist are not entirely the same thing. But where this person's situation differs from my first example is that Morello is well past the "doing what one needs to do to survive" point.

All that said, there is something to the argument that the vast difference between the billionaires of the USA and the median household income can be opposed by a Tom Morello, because as wealthy as Morello is, he's still very much closer to the median than he is to the extreme wealth of the likes of Bill Gates, etc.