Jump to content

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

markstanco

By markstanco
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

oh, and to add, let's offer up a 'comparable' analogy reversal and see how it fits.  who's the aoc of the right?  jim jordan?  matt gaetz? this is basically like if there was a huge earthquake he

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

some people see 99% and consider that absolutism.  i am one of those people. this is not your wife grabbing your cell phone that you left in the other room.  this is not a quick favor.  this is a

RomaVicta
RomaVicta

Yes, of course. She is the only woman or woman of color the left right (edit) focuses their ire on. There are no other examples. Great point. It's really all intellectual and rational. And usually ver

Posted Images

Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Quote

In the latest The Hill-HarrisX survey, which was conducted Jan. 12 and 13 after the newly elected congresswoman called for the U.S. to raise its highest tax rate to 70 percent, found that a sizable majority of registered voters, 59 percent, supports the idea.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-majority-of-americans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-70

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted

That's 59% right away. Support for very high levels (90+%) at the $10M+/yr income level would gain popularity very quickly if the Dems got behind it.

This is a bigger litmus test for 2020 Dems than anything to do with ~*~decorum~*~ or foreign policy or identity politics: Will you fight for economic justice or will you continue to sell out the working class to the wealthy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

So what would the AGI range be on that top margin?  Something like $2.5mm+, I'm guessing?  

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There are a million possibilities for both the marginal brackets and the rates on those brackets. It would be interesting to talk through proposal ideas. 90% on 2.5M+ seems fine to me, though it's a little more aggressive than I would go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11665

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would love to see some models of the actual revenue to be gained with a new bracket and rate along teh lines of what is being discussed, after accounting for the changes in compensation structure that high earning individuals would deploy.

There is validity to the Laffer Curve.

Damn right people will work like hell to not pay 90cents on the dollar in taxes at any level of income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

There is validity to the Laffer Curve.

Damn right people will work like hell to not pay 90cents on the dollar in taxes at any level of income.

Her suggested top marginal rate is actually below the revenue maximizing rate estimated by Piketty and Saez.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w17616.pdf

 

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

I thought it was funny that so many considered her proposal to be such a faux pas.  Why wouldn't most people support taxing the wealthy to pay for public goods?  If you look at the crosstabs on the poll, it's striking how virtually every demographic is in support of the policy.  Even white people!  Even Southerners!  Even rural voters! Even the dreaded boomers! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I would love to see some models of the actual revenue to be gained with a new bracket and rate along teh lines of what is being discussed, after accounting for the changes in compensation structure that high earning individuals would deploy.

It's a game of cat and mouse, for sure. So much so that the more interesting conversation isn't really about the granular specifics, but instead is about the larger philosophical ideas involved. However, the ability of the wealth class to hide wealth is not infinite. There are limits to the ability of the wealth class to hide wealth given a sufficiently stringent regulatory system and a public will to see those regulations enacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

It's a game of cat and mouse, for sure. So much so that the more interesting conversation isn't really about the granular specifics, but instead is about the larger philosophical ideas involved. However, the ability of the wealth class to hide wealth is not infinite. There are limits to the ability of the wealth class to hide wealth given a sufficiently stringent regulatory system and a public will to see those regulations enacted.

There are also limits to what you will be able to tax out of the extreme ends of the income distribution.  If you want to move the needle, you either need to tax the meat of the distribution reaching into the middle class, or consider a substantial wealth tax that hits all assets and isn't limited by reported annual income. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There are also limits to what you will be able to tax out of the extreme ends of the income distribution.

True. Are you under the impression that the people you are talking to/about don't also realize this very obvious thing?

Quote

If you want to move the needle, you either need to tax the meat of the distribution reaching into the middle class, or consider a substantial wealth tax that hits all assets and isn't limited by reported annual income. 

Yeah.

What you're bringing up here seems unrelated to what was initially being discussed, though I would imagine with "Because the government can never have enough." as a rebuttal we're getting some South-Park-Conservative-Circa-2004, "heh don't you libs even know Econ 101"- level argument about leaving the rich alone. But it's kind of hard to make those arguments straight-out in 2019 so one has to be cute about it.

The purpose of bringing the high marginal rates up to historical norms isn't necessarily about balancing a budget or "moving the needle" (whatever that vagueness might mean). The purpose, in the context of this thread (AOC), is to be one of a raft of proposals with the intention of increasing economic fairness and equity.

But if you look at the marginal social utility of a billionaire's next dollar being in his possession or the government's, it's far better for the government to have it. Not even arguable, really, if someone is making honest and open arguments.

The billionaire generally makes his next dollar by shipping jobs overseas or doing some sort of other cost-cutting measure that negatively impacts American workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

True. Are you under the impression that the people you are talking to/about don't also realize this very obvious thing?

Quote

I do not think that the vast majority of the people that the politicians are pitching this to as a cure-all do.  Tax the hell out of the super-rich sounds great and all, but it doesn't generate the revenues necessary to pull off M4A and loan forgiveness and basic income and all the other cotton candy proposals.

 

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

But if you look at the marginal social utility of a billionaire's next dollar being in his possession or the government's, it's far better for the government to have it. Not even arguable, really, if someone is making honest and open arguments.

The billionaire generally makes his next dollar by shipping jobs overseas or doing some sort of other cost-cutting measure that negatively impacts American workers.

You and AOC seem focused on billionaires, but there are unfortunately few of them to build a tax policy around.  Your formulation above extends beyond a pure income tax.  The way that you formulate the above, you suggest that wealth or assets should be part of the taxing dynamic. At least as far as the federal income tax is concerned, our current code does not take into account one's net assets in determining how much of the next dollar the government should take. If you want to go that direction, I would love to see that fleshed out, and how it would be received by the American people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29349

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

I do not think that the vast majority of the people that the politicians are pitching this to as a cure-all do.  Tax the hell out of the super-rich sounds great and all, but it doesn't generate the revenues necessary to pull off M4A and loan forgiveness and basic income and all the other cotton candy proposals.

 

You and AOC seem focused on billionaires, but there are unfortunately few of them to build a tax policy around.  Your formulation above extends beyond a pure income tax.  The way that you formulate the above, you suggest that wealth or assets should be part of the taxing dynamic. At least as far as the federal income tax is concerned, our current code does not take into account one's net assets in determining how much of the next dollar the government should take. If you want to go that direction, I would love to see that fleshed out, and how it would be received by the American people.  

I'm pretty sure an overwhelming majority of the American people would be perfectly fine with taxing the shit out of the wealthy if every attempt to do so weren't dishonestly portrayed by conservatives as the big bad government out to take the family farm away.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I do not think that the vast majority of the people that the politicians are pitching this to as a cure-all do.  Tax the hell out of the super-rich sounds great and all, but it doesn't generate the revenues necessary to pull off M4A and loan forgiveness and basic income and all the other cotton candy proposals. 

Ah, so I was right on with the South Park Conservative mindset thing. You think you're smarter than the people you're talking to, but really you just have your head up where it shouldn't be.

Who, specifically, is pitching a higher marginal tax rate as the cure-all? Name names, boy-o. Enough of the strawmen.

Quote

You and AOC seem focused on billionaires, but there are unfortunately few of them to build a tax policy around. 

They're part of the picture. You want to pretend you're smarter than the people you're talking to/about and act like we don't already know that, but we do. It is not JUST about the billionaires, but it is also about the billionaires and the overall system of capital.

Dumb Idiot: "The wealthy don't pay enough in taxes. We should raise taxes on them."

Smart Guy: "That won't be enough to fund every single policy idea on a perfectly balanced budget!"

Dumb Idiot: "I never said it would. What are you talking about?"

Smart Guy: "Get back to me when you've gotten a basic education!"

*Kyle walks out to give the end-of-episode speech*

Quote

If you want to go that direction, I would love to see that fleshed out, and how it would be received by the American people.  

What if we're just talking about income tax policy?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17534

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Ah, so I was right on with the South Park Conservative mindset thing. You think you're smarter than the people you're talking to, but really you just have your head up where it shouldn't be.

Who, specifically, is pitching a higher marginal tax rate as the cure-all? Name names, boy-o. Enough of the strawmen.

They're part of the picture. You want to pretend you're smarter than the people you're talking to/about and act like we don't already know that, but we do. It is not JUST about the billionaires, but it is also about the billionaires and the overall system of capital.

Dumb Idiot: "The wealthy don't pay enough in taxes. We should raise taxes on them."

Smart Guy: "That won't be enough to fund every single policy idea on a perfectly balanced budget!"

Dumb Idiot: "I never said it would. What are you talking about?"

Smart Guy: "Get back to me when you've gotten a basic education!"

*Kyle walks out to give the end-of-episode speech*

What if we're just talking about income tax policy?

Ouch. I think that one burns a bit Anastasis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, bolverk said:

She's going to be a speaker at SXSW.

https://www.austin360.com/entertainmentlife/20190115/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-coming-to-austin-for-sxsw-2019

Over/under on the number of Surly posters hit with restraining orders for stalking?  I'm thinking setting it at 5 will get some betting action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Ah, so I was right on with the South Park Conservative mindset thing. You think you're smarter than the people you're talking to, but really you just have your head up where it shouldn't be.

Who, specifically, is pitching a higher marginal tax rate as the cure-all? Name names, boy-o. Enough of the strawmen.

I don't know, gee. Who is talking about a higher marginal tax rate to fund their cotton candy initiative.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted

I just watched the video you linked and no where in there does she say raising the top marginal rates will be a "cure-all" or anything of the sort. She mentions it as a necessary reform for funding, which it is. Please quote the specific part of the video you're talking about.

You're supposed to be a both-sider, Anastasis, not an outright lying right-wing hack. Stay on brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

You never hear the follow up to that old adage about how we used to have marginal rates over 85% decades ago...that we had an even more robust deduction schedule that put top earners effectively at the about the same effective tax rate as we see nowadays (assuming they're paying what they're supposed to, which I certainly admit is far from a given).  The Minimum Tax and its baby, the AMT, came along in the late 1960's precisely because the marginal rates at such high levels were proving ineffective.  A Democratic Congress and White House didn't conceive it because all those millionaires were finally "paying their fair share" with those high marginal rates.  They invented it because high rates weren't working.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brew

Brew 3049

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There are a million possibilities for both the marginal brackets and the rates on those brackets. It would be interesting to talk through proposal ideas. 90% on 2.5M+ seems fine to me, though it's a little more aggressive than I would go.

That’s fucking ludicrous. You actually think a 90% top tax rate is reasonable? It should definitely be higher than 37.5% and include all income sources but the rates being thrown around are nutty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm all for a progressive tax code with higher marginal top rates than we have now.  90% is absurd, though.  It just feels wrong.  (How's that for analysis?)

Someone who knows his views are influenced by emotion (as all of ours are, since we're not psychopaths).

5 minutes ago, Brew said:

That’s fucking ludicrous. You actually think a 90% top tax rate is reasonable? It should definitely be higher than 37.5% and include all income sources but the rates being thrown around are nutty.

Someone who doesn't.

----------------------------------

A 90% top tax rate can be considered perfectly reasonable, depending on one's mindset and where the top tax rate is set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34230

Posted
Posted



You never hear the follow up to that old adage about how we used to have marginal rates over 85% decades ago...that we had an even more robust deduction schedule that put top earners effectively at the about the same effective tax rate as we see nowadays


If you think "but no one paid that cuz deductions/loopholes" doesn't follow "tax rates used to be 90%" on a fairly regular basis, you've simply not been paying attention.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I just watched the video you linked and no where in there does she say raising the top marginal rates will be a "cure-all" or anything of the sort. She mentions it as a necessary reform for funding, which it is.

As I noted upthread, if you want to raise substantial revenues via income taxes, you are going to have to raise taxes deep into the middle class (or the working class if you prefer).  This notion that you we can raise income taxes on the "tippy tops" to effect substantive change, while avoiding the middle class is fantastical nonsense.  Pointing that out makes me a right wing hack I guess. But it is apparently a good political angle to take.  People will march around with polling data about public support for taxing the rich, talking about equity for the working class, crafting their 2020 sound bites, right up until an actual policy proposal is put forth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

As I noted upthread, if you want to raise substantial revenues via income taxes, you are going to have to raise taxes deep into the middle class (or the working class if you prefer).  This notion that you we can raise income taxes on the "tippy tops" to effect substantive change, while avoiding the middle class is fantastical nonsense.  Pointing that out makes me a right wing hack I guess. But it is apparently a good political angle to take.  People will march around with polling data about public support for taxing the rich, talking about equity for the working class, crafting their 2020 sound bites, right up until an actual policy proposal is put forth. 

Yep, and once again the American middle class will be bent over a rail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

As I noted upthread, if you want to raise substantial revenues via income taxes, you are going to have to raise taxes deep into the middle class (or the working class if you prefer).  This notion that you we can raise income taxes on the "tippy tops" to effect substantive change, while avoiding the middle class is fantastical nonsense.  Pointing that out makes me a right wing hack I guess. But it is apparently a good political angle to take.  People will march around with polling data about public support for taxing the rich, talking about equity for the working class, crafting their 2020 sound bites, right up until an actual policy proposal is put forth. 

Sounds about right. Let's get it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's a #bothsides proposition. 

Yeah they get it coming and going al

 

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I wonder if the Nordic middle class feels this way.

Hmmmm.

Yeah you mean all 1or 2million of 'em.  Please stop trying to compare a small, homogeneous population of a European nation that would fit in one state to the united states of America. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah they get it coming and going al

 

Yeah you mean all 1or 2million of 'em.  Please stop trying to compare a small, homogeneous population of a European nation that would fit in one state to the united states of America. 

Please stop thinking we can't have European socialism in the United States.

We most certainly can.

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

As I noted upthread, if you want to raise substantial revenues via income taxes, you are going to have to raise taxes deep into the middle class (or the working class if you prefer).  This notion that you we can raise income taxes on the "tippy tops" to effect substantive change, while avoiding the middle class is fantastical nonsense.  Pointing that out makes me a right wing hack I guess. But it is apparently a good political angle to take.  People will march around with polling data about public support for taxing the rich, talking about equity for the working class, crafting their 2020 sound bites, right up until an actual policy proposal is put forth. 

We can effect substantive change without raising taxes on anyone.

What makes you a right-wing hack is that you fictionalize arguments on the left to attack. What you're trying to do, and in doing so being the most predictable and pathetic mid-2000s South Park Republican, is isolate a single policy idea and pretend that is the sole concept and conceit of your ideological opponent. And, like the aforementioned hack, you provide quotes that don't actually back up what you say.

Your attempt to post that clip of AOC as evidence that she says that raising the top marginal rates alone is a "cure-all" is Tahoe-level dishonesty.

Edited by bad_teammate
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...