Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[HoustonFrog 368]

I would support a super high tax rate on the ultra wealthy and I lean pretty far right fiscally. The problem is defining ultra wealthy (in my opinion this would mean annual income of over $100mm)






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bad_teammate 13224]

10 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I think you are right to some extent.  But when Americans finally have the veil pulled back and are finally shown that so many of the small businesses they work for (S, sub-S, LLC, PC)...have flow-thru taxation...that 70% marginal rate is gonna make them drop to their knees and weep.  It's easy to tell a guy with an AGI of $1.0mm to pay 70% at top margin.  It's another thing when you find out your boss' Sub-S has a top line of $1.0mm and also has to kick in 70% at top margin. Where do such employed Democrats think that tax bill is going to come from?  He's not just going to zero out his books and tax bill and then get around to payroll.  

Which proposal, specifically, treats those two $1M pots as the same with regard to taxation?

[Brisketexan 105319]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Which proposal, specifically, treats those two $1M pots as the same with regard to taxation?

Yeah....I have never heard of a tax proposal that would tax an S-corp on its gross receipts.

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, HoustonFrog said:

I would support a super high tax rate on the ultra wealthy and I lean pretty far right fiscally. The problem is defining ultra wealthy (in my opinion this would mean annual income of over $100mm)

Every dollar over $100M/year should be taxed at 95%. I'm not even sure that should be legal.

[Asithappens 974]

A high progressive tax scheme, along with an estate tax, worked in the past. No reason why it shouldn't work now.

Everyone wants to go to the party. Nobody wants to stay and clean up. (great line from a great movie: Ronin).

[Guest Lobo]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Which proposal, specifically, treats those two $1M pots as the same with regard to taxation?

In two different interviews on programs that I would call moderate or independent (60 minutes being chief among them), she stated that a top marginal rate of 70% is needed to combat climate change and other challenges.  She states that once an income earner gets into the millions of dollars of income, they should pay more and that rates should top out at 70%.  

My point is that this does not take into account the hundreds of thousands of filers that "seem" to have income of $1.00-$10.00mm.  And that they aren't really making that much money.  Sub-S, LLC, et. al. (forget I said S)---she does not appear (I'm not saying she doesn't know this privately), in her interviews, to understand the difference that there are not really that many Americans making that much money.

If she breaks down the myriad types of small business filers and how the AGI conversation is different from them to a W-2 employee making $1.00mm between base and bonus/commission, in another place-please link as I would love to read it and help her broadcast it to the rest of her party in Congress.  

And estate taxes are the most racist taxes we have.  

Edited January 4, 2019 by Lobo

[Brisketexan 105319]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

And estate taxes are the most racist taxes we have.  

????

[Leeroy Jenkins 2414]

I don't CR much but I just came to say nice tits.  

[wildcat09 29379]

It me, big smart brain person who will show that I know more about the tax code than someone else by showing my complete lack of understanding of the tax code or the basic fact that amendments to it could actually change how it works.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just now, Lobo said:

My point is that this does not take into account the hundreds of thousands of filers that "seem" to have income of $1.00-$10.00mm.  And that they aren't really making that much money.  Sub-S, LLC, et. al.---she does not appear (I'm not saying she doesn't know this privately), in her interviews, to understand the difference that there are not really that many Americans making that much money.

Based on... what? Has she ever said anything specifically about gross S-corp being the same as an individual's AGI?

Putting arguments in people's mouths. #sad

[Guest Lobo]

teammate-I'm not putting anything in her mouth  I'm asking one of you to give me a link to where she demonstrates she understands that you can't just take the gross amount of millionaire filings and take a 70% at the top rate and clear that much money because of how many of those filings are pass-thru SBO arrangements.  

And to Brisket question on estate tax 

it's probably a response for a different thread since we're all over the place with this current one with AOC (whom I like for taking down Joe Crowley and because she likes stirring shit up in a good way, not in the fuckbag Trump way).  

Edited January 4, 2019 by Lobo

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, Asithappens said:

Yeah, punchcards and typewriters aren't the system I'm talking about (and I get your point).

If she (and you) want to change the system, she should probably master it first, don't you think? Maybe you don't think that. I do. 

 

Don't worry. She is mastering the zero compromise system your GOP put in place under Gingrich. Unfortunately, y'all have created a system that offers nothing but retaliatory governance. I expect AOC to keep that system in place even though I want her to destroy it.

It is time to toss that system out completely. If you aren't willing to work with the other side, you shouldn't be in Congress.  

As far as expecting decorum, the GOP also threw that out the window. She could shit on the floor in Congress and still have more decorum than your party's flagbearer. 

If you wanted a "system" that treats you fairly as a minority party, you shouldnt be such a fucking piece of shit when you have the majority. 

Edited January 4, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

It me, big smart brain person who will show that I know more about the tax code than someone else by showing my complete lack of understanding of the tax code or the basic fact that amendments to it could actually change how it works.

Economic Brain Geniuses are generally completely fucking stupid. I can't even count how many times some Economic Brain Genius made an argument against high marginal tax rates by saying the whole, "If you tax $1M income at 50% then that person actually makes less than someone who makes $750k at a 35% tax rate!" thing.

[HoustonFrog 368]

Every dollar over $100M/year should be taxed at 95%. I'm not even sure that should be legal.

It should be legal, not sure why it wouldn’t be, but a very high tax seems appropriate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brisketexan 105319]

4 minutes ago, Lobo said:

^

it's probably a response for a different thread since we're all over the place with this current one with AOC (whom I like for taking down Joe Crowley and because she likes stirring shit up in a good way, not in the fuckbag Trump way).  

Yeah, I really don't follow you.  She made a statement about taxing that level of income generally.  That didn't say anything about treating gross receipts of an S-corp as taxable income (which is not the way it works).  In simple terms, If I earn $1 million in ordinary income, I hit the top marginal rate.  If I earn $1 million in S-corp pass-through income, I hit the top marginal rate.  If my S-corp has $1 million in gross receipts, and expenses of $750k, then I have pass-through income of $250k, and pay the tax rate that applies at that level.  You haven't pointed to anything she said that's inconsistent with that.  As far as I know, she didn't say a word about completely changing the way that S-corps work.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Brisketexan

[Anastasis 23484]

Raising the marginal rates on income at the extreme tail of the distribution is just rhetoric. If you want to meaningfully raise income tax revenues you will have to raise taxes on the meatier portion of the income distribution, i.e. the mid- and upper-middle class. Good luck with finding the political will to face the backlash that would result with that.  

[Guest Lobo]

I didn't say that she broke down sub-S filings, hence my asking for any more detail or color to her tax plan.  If ya'll go back and look at my original quote, it was from a poster who said that most Americans would be in favor of 70% top marginal rate.  I was replying that champions of that idea may not understand that many filings aren't really making that kinda money.  We all know how the SBO filings work (or least a chunk of that insane tax code).   Post 2947 is where I started on the tax thing and it made zero fucking mention of AOC, it was addressed to a more macro concern about American's thoughts on all this.  Christ. 

When I started on pass-thru granularity, it was to someone who said that most Americans would favor that rate.  I never started out saying AOC's Sub-S tax plan won't work.  I started out in response to something else, which admittedly was on this thread.  Then I asked for more background in AOC's tax plan, a perfectly reasonable question that of course was met with the usual bullshit on CR.  I would have voted for her if I could, she's a Latina that doesn't take a lot of shit.  Which is what I was raised by my whole life, Hispanic women with bootstrapped backgrounds.  

So forget I asked, this forum is just an absolute delight.  I'll take the rest of my tax thoughts to another thread, I think we actually do have a few on here that are somewhat appropriate.  Thanks, have a happy new year. 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Lobo

[RayDog 682]

In the top brackets the first step needs to be closing tax loopholes and tax cheating. Then we can assess what percentages make sense.

As an expat most of the guys I know making a half million or more a year are hiding income offshore.

[Francisco 2.0 32426]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Every dollar over $100M/year should be taxed at 95%. I'm not even sure that should be legal.

Of course it would be legal.  It was done in this country before.  91% on all money over $400,000 per year for a married couple in Ike's time.

 

Now, would that get passed out of the House in this day and age?  Chuckles.

 

 

[Anastasis 23484]

Just now, Francisco 2.0 said:

Of course it would be legal.  It was done in this country before.  91% on all money over $400,000 per year for a married couple in Ike's time.

  

Now, would that get passed out of the House in this day and age?  Chuckles.

 

 

I read that as him saying that making 100MM per year in income should probably not be legal. 

[Francisco 2.0 32426]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I read that as him saying that making 100MM per year in income should probably not be legal. 

Good point, upon further reflection.

 

That sounds awfully anti-capitalistic.

[lemonlime 5503]

So the party that's enacting taxes  based on a president who quite literally has no understanding of who actually pays the taxes he's imposing  is criticizing a second day congresscritter's understanding of sub-S filings, pass through, and marginal rates.

 

[jimmyjazz 46124]

18 minutes ago, Lobo said:

teammate-I'm not putting anything in her mouth  I'm asking one of you to give me a link to where she demonstrates she understands that you can't just take the gross amount of millionaire filings and take a 70% at the top rate and clear that much money because of how many of those filings are pass-thru SBO arrangements.  

And to Brisket question on estate tax 

it's probably a response for a different thread since we're all over the place with this current one with AOC (whom I like for taking down Joe Crowley and because she likes stirring shit up in a good way, not in the fuckbag Trump way).  

You're presuming that she was including small businesses in that model.  That's a huge stretch (and a stupid one at that).

For the record, I am not at all in favor of individual AGI above $1M (pick your number) being taxed at anything close to 70%.

[Guest Lobo]

I am presuming she may have included small businesses in that model, because there are 28 million corporate filings in this country.  A member of Congress, in an extended interview on tax policy, may wish to note a thought or two on the way those 28 million American Entities pay taxes.  Just a thought.  

And again, in my original response that stared this path---I was merely replying to a poster who discussed the 70% marginal rate being quite popular.  Never made mention of AOC.  When I did, I asked if anyone had more background color on her thoughts on small business taxation.  And all I've gotten, instead of facts, which have could have led to a mature discussion of tax reform, is the usual bullshit from people who have less in common with her than I do.  

Thanks guys.  

[Incredulity 11683]

Also, conflation of gross income and net income.  Which is a very common situation in these discussions, particularly by the MSM.

Those figures also get bastarized with Market Cap.

 

[jimmyjazz 46124]

10 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I am presuming she may have included small businesses in that model, because there are 28 million corporate filings in this country.  A member of Congress, in an extended interview on tax policy, may wish to note a thought or two on the way those 28 million American Entities pay taxes.  Just a thought.  

And again, in my original response that stared this path---I was merely replying to a poster who discussed the 70% marginal rate being quite popular.  Never made mention of AOC.  When I did, I asked if anyone had more background color on her thoughts on small business taxation.  And all I've gotten, instead of facts, which have could have led to a mature discussion of tax reform, is the usual bullshit from people who have less in common with her than I do.  

Thanks guys.  

No, that's not the way it played out at all.  You came out of the gates with the clear presumption that small businesses would also pay a 70% marginal rate above $1M in her model.  Don't try to rewrite very recent history, it's on the last fucking page.

[Guest Lobo]

59 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I think you are right to some extent.  But when Americans finally have the veil pulled back and are finally shown that so many of the small businesses they work for (S, sub-S, LLC, PC)...have flow-thru taxation...that 70% marginal rate is gonna make them drop to their knees and weep.  It's easy to tell a guy with an AGI of $1.0mm to pay 70% at top margin.  It's another thing when you find out your boss' Sub-S has a top line of $1.0mm and also has to kick in 70% at top margin. Where do such employed Democrats think that tax bill is going to come from?  He's not just going to zero out his books and tax bill and then get around to payroll.  

Here's my out of the gate quote in response to that guy talking about Americans wanting the 70% tax rate.  Where, specifically, do I mention Rep. Cortez in this post?  

[elfenix 34332]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

Here's my out of the gate quote in response to that guy talking about Americans wanting the 70% tax rate.  Where, specifically, do I mention Rep. Cortez in this post?  

this is the AOC thread.  moose out front shoulda told ya.

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, and I think part of my response was written to Jimmyjazz who claims I used her straight away.  Anyway, we need a tax reform thread and more people should be paying more taxes.  I'll leave it for another thread.  I'd just like somebody at a high level talking about tax reform to acknowledge that tens of millions of filers are corporations.  And not big ones.  I'll let the circle jerk continue.  

It's a really good thing for our Democracy that the very same people who would have gone into battle without hesitation if Joe Crowley said so, now dance on his grave.  

[jimmyjazz 46124]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, and I think part of my response was written to Jimmyjazz who claims I used her straight away.

We're talking about her model for fuck's sake.

[Guest Lobo]

It's not a model if it doesn't speak to corporate filings.  Saying rich people earning millions should pay 70% at the top rate isn't original, bold, politically daring, mathematically correct, or even remotely interesting.  

[GSU&UT 1798]

30 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Good point, upon further reflection.

 

That sounds awfully anti-capitalistic.

[Incredulity 11683]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

It's not a model if it doesn't speak to corporate filings.  Saying rich people earning millions should pay 70% at the top rate isn't original, bold, politically daring, mathematically correct, or even remotely interesting.  

But it feeds her base.  So.....expect more.

[elfenix 34332]

comes into thread about AOC, responding to a post responding to 70% tax rates brought up by AOC in an interview, assumes they're on $1 million "income" for small biz (despite AOC mentioning $10 million in the same interview), also assumes that the 70% tax rates are on gross revenue rather than income, then claims the rest of us are the ones jerking off.

well done.

[Dahobbs 17682]

8 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Here's my out of the gate quote in response to that guy talking about Americans wanting the 70% tax rate.  Where, specifically, do I mention Rep. Cortez in this post?  

Uh, you're talking about her suggestion for a 70% rate. It is pretty fucking obvious you are talking about her. And it is obvious that you have no idea how any of this works since no one has suggested changing how sub-s corps are taxed. 

[jimmyjazz 46124]

4 minutes ago, Lobo said:

It's not a model if it doesn't speak to corporate filings.  Saying rich people earning millions should pay 70% at the top rate isn't original, bold, politically daring, mathematically correct, or even remotely interesting.  

You keep trying to dodge.  You know good and well she didn't speak to any level of detail that would reasonably let you conclude that small business income would be included under that tax umbrella.  Frankly, it's ludicrous to assume so.  It would never pass the first read, and it's a fucking red herring.  

This is classic nit-picking to discount the uppity woman.  Well, fuck that.

[Guest Lobo]

And that's the problem, all-star---nobody talks about overhauling that part or how those people really aren't multi-millionaires because that doesn't fire up people politically.    (p.s. I scored 100% on the tax portion of the CFP exam and lecture on it at one of the best business schools in the country). for dahoobs.  shit, can't keep up with this thread.  

Okay, so she's perfectly correct.  Can we also address the other tax issues in another thread?  

Edited January 4, 2019 by Lobo

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Perhaps one day we will address the $700 billion military budget.  It’s becoming clearer we have less and less worth defending. 

[Continental Op 3934]

There's no thread Cruiser can't turn into an opportunity for self-aggrandizement.  

[elfenix 34332]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

And that's the problem, all-star---nobody talks about overhauling that part or how those people really aren't multi-millionaires because that doesn't fire up people politically.    (p.s. I scored 100% on the tax portion of the CFP exam and lecture on it at one of the best business schools in the country). for dahoobs.  shit, can't keep up with this thread.  

Okay, so she's perfectly correct.  Can we also address the other tax issues in another thread?  

you can jerk off in here:

 

[jimmyjazz 46124]

"All-star".  How magnanimous.  

I really don't think a fairly broad-based assertion that the top marginal rate needs to approach 70% should be expected to address all of your badass tax lecturing expectations.  But thanks for minimizing us peons.

[wildcat09 29379]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

And that's the problem, all-star---nobody talks about overhauling that part or how those people really aren't multi-millionaires because that doesn't fire up people politically.    (p.s. I scored 100% on the tax portion of the CFP exam and lecture on it at one of the best business schools in the country). for dahoobs.  shit, can't keep up with this thread.  

Okay, so she's perfectly correct.  Can we also address the other tax issues in another thread?  

True Economic Brain Genius here.

[Continental Op 3934]

I can explain when you're allowed to claim someone as a dependent from memory.  Look upon my works ye mighty and despair! 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps one day we will address the $700 billion military budget.  It’s becoming clearer we have less and less worth defending. 

Our military spending isn't about defending anything.  Its about greasing the wheels of the military industrial complex.

As far as "defense" goes, we could pull all the equipment and personnel we have back into our own local sphere of influence and nothing much different would happen in the world.  We have mutually assured destruction with all the world powers, and we have countries in every global region, save for Africa, that are interested in keeping the waters open for trade.  We also have no need to step into anymore middle eastern civil wars and border wars.

Personally, rather than cutting that spending entirely, I'd keep all our forces closer to home and make them leaner, and funnel the rest of the largesse into exploratory science rather than defense.  The aerospace industry will still get to gobble up tax dollars.

The idea that we have to be prepared at all times to fight a modern version of WW2 is preposterous.  If that time ever comes and the whole world isn't a smoking ruin, we can ramp up military service and production to deal with it then.  Just like WW2.  But it isn't going to ever come because somebody is going to pull the nuclear trigger before the tanks ever get close to Moscow, Washington, or Beijing.

Edited January 4, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[Dahobbs 17682]

16 minutes ago, Lobo said:

And that's the problem, all-star---nobody talks about overhauling that part or how those people really aren't multi-millionaires because that doesn't fire up people politically.    (p.s. I scored 100% on the tax portion of the CFP exam and lecture on it at one of the best business schools in the country). for dahoobs.  shit, can't keep up with this thread.  

Okay, so she's perfectly correct.  Can we also address the other tax issues in another thread?  

So you just assumed that a proposal to increase marginal rates also involved completely changing multiple aspects of tax law because . . .? If I suggest that Texas should attack deep more often are you going to assume that I mean we should do away with having an o-line? You brought up a stupid non-sequitur, just admit it.  

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

3 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Everyone obsessing over this woman who has been in Congress for one day should just do like Icono and admit they want to bone her. 

That's why I worry about her physical safety. Too much crazy out there. She's a she. She's a brown she. She's hot brown she. She's a cocky hot brown she with a nice rack and leftist ideals, and now, we see, some saucy dance moves. Too many fucking crazed incels out there, man. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

That's why I worry about her physical safety. Too much crazy out there. She's a she. She's a brown she. She's hot brown she. She's a cocky hot brown she with a nice rack and leftist ideals, and now, we see, some saucy dance moves. Too many fucking crazed incels out there, man. 

Just having Icono alone after her warrants a full time security team.

[Guest Lobo]

dahobbs---

A poster above my initial post on this sub-topic mentioned most Americans supporting a rate change at the top of the brackets.  I responded that most Americans don't understand how that appearance of high income may work for some SBO's/smaller corporate entities.  In subsequent posts, I mentioned Rep. Cortez, and her tax plans, and should not have.  For that, I apologize and have attempted to conclude this off-course veer.  Personal attacks have been fun, can't wait for somebody to use my real name and location again like a couple of others have in the past on here.  Always a delight when people can't separate online banter and real life consquences.  

Edited January 4, 2019 by Lobo

[Michael Knight 12994]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

You have evidence she ISN'T smart?  Policy disagreement doesn't count.

She's brown and a woman, I mean how smart can she be

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Just having Icono alone after her warrants a full time security team.

Fun fact: nobody in Congress has a security team.