Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[jimmyjazz 45513]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Fun fact: nobody in Congress has a security team. 

Well, it would get pretty crowded on the baseball diamond if they did.

[Celery Man 20874]

does mensa not have a message board?

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Sure is odd to be discussing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

[GSU&UT 1798]

48 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

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

Oh shit, I didn't realize that was him. I guess this all makes sense now.

[Patrick Bateman 3903]

2 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

These two right here have a lot of support of everyday Americans whether you want to believe it or not. The others, maybe, it's absolutely a popular opinion that we need to significantly curb our fossil fuel consumption to combat climate change and that has the support of the majority of Americans as well.

Can you please support that a lot (meaning substantial) of everyday Americans want a marginal tax bracket of 70%.  Do some want higher income taxes on the super wealthy?  Sure, although most Americans are foolish when it comes to taxes and we should do more to close tax loopholes and pass throughs than just jack up marginal tax brackets to some extreme number for shock value.

 

[ADHD 28]

Because the Longhorn band played Selena during the Sugar Bowl halftime show 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Actually, seems par for the course.  What you "fear", really turns you on.  Just like the Evangelicals and the "gays".  

Have no fear of her. I have said numerous times here that she has a very likable public persona, her Ms. Smith Goes to Washington vibe and Twitter game is brilliant. She blows Beto out of the water when it comes to her ceiling. She is going to be a formidable opponent for the GOP. She is no joke. Finally, in all seriousness, she really turns me on.

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

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.  

Actually, you suggested that most Americans dont understand that increasing the top marginal bracket would destroy jobs because small businesses would be taxed out of existence based on gross income. Of course, that isn't true because small businesses would never be taxed based on gross income. Either you didnt understand the basics of the law or you attempted to distort reality to make a rhetorical point and got caught. Admit it. 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Dahobbs

[bad_teammate 13125]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

 I responded that most Americans don't understand how that appearance of high income may work for some SBO's/smaller corporate entities. 

You know how Trump says, "Not a lot of people know X" when he either just learned about "X" or doesn't actually know anything about "X"? Yeah, that's this.

People understand the difference between gross revenue in a small business venture and traditional income. Even the poor run or engage with small business. They know that store space and inventory and staffing cost money. That's not hard for anyone to understand and no one that you can show has confused that in any way. It is literally some bullshit you have fabricated in your mind because you think you're 10x smarter than you actually are.

Quote

Always a delight when people can't separate online banter and real life consquences.  

"I'm the REAL victim in this!" - Dumb, trolling asshole

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

The 70% tax rate isn't as crazy as thinking it's even remotely possible to eliminate ALL fossil fuels in 12 years. 

I don't have a problem that she is a woman and like others have said it's great there is new blood in DC. That said it will be interesting to see if this new crop of so called "radicals" or "outsiders" really do move the needle or after a short time in the lime light will be told by their own party to shut up and get back into line. 

Everyone runs on "changing DC" it just never fucking happens. I hope that she and others really do change the way DC is currently run. But I am not holding my breath. 

[bad_teammate 13125]

2 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

The 70% tax rate isn't as crazy as thinking it's even remotely possible to eliminate ALL fossil fuels in 12 years. 

I don't have a problem that she is a woman and like others have said it's great there is new blood in DC. That said it will be interesting to see if this new crop of so called "radicals" or "outsiders" really do move the needle or after a short time in the lime light will be told by their own party to shut up and get back into line. 

Everyone runs on "changing DC" it just never fucking happens. I hope that she and others really do change the way DC is currently run. But I am not holding my breath. 

DC changes all the time in marginal ways. The only thing that might be different (i.e., larger than usual changes) is the demographic shift this new crop represents. There is a bigger difference between a conservative white guy and a liberal minority woman than there is between a conservative white guy and a liberal white guy. If that makes any sense. We're at ~20% female representation in Congress. Shift that up to 50/50 and shit will be different (and probably much, much better).

[GSU&UT 1798]

50 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Can you please support that a lot (meaning substantial) of everyday Americans want a marginal tax bracket of 70%.  Do some want higher income taxes on the super wealthy?  Sure, although most Americans are foolish when it comes to taxes and we should do more to close tax loopholes and pass throughs than just jack up marginal tax brackets to some extreme number for shock value.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/27/more-americans-favor-raising-than-lowering-tax-rates-on-corporations-high-household-incomes/

52% want higher taxes, 25% want taxes raised "a lot" on large businesses and corporations. Nitpick me all you want about quantifying all of this, to say that it's a radical left position to raise taxes this high on the most wealthy is not true anymore.

[RayDog 682]

The green new deal recently polled above 80% and above 50% among Republicans. That does include the 12 year target to eliminate fossil fuels, even if it is an impossibility. If you are anti green new deal you are definitely far right wing based on public polling.

Climate change aside, I would really like to see Russia, KSA, UAE, and Qatar have their economies destroyed for giving us Trump. And, Iran too for their destabilization of the ME.

Edited January 4, 2019 by RayDog

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

6 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/27/more-americans-favor-raising-than-lowering-tax-rates-on-corporations-high-household-incomes/

52% want higher taxes, 25% want taxes raised "a lot" on large businesses and corporations. Nitpick me all you want about quantifying all of this, to say that it's a radical left position to raise taxes this high on the most wealthy is not true anymore.

 

Yeah, the thing about those "polls" is they don't ask any follow ups to the idiots responding on how they would achieve that, what they would be giving up in return, and the ramifications of doing so. 

It's the same shit as Universal Health Care. It sounds great in theory (and I am not saying that Health Care system in this country doesn't need a major overhaul) but implementing it and letting everyone know what they are going to have to give up to get there are two vastly different things. 

In a vacuum everything sounds great until that person realizes what they would have to sacrifice to achieve it. It's an easy question to answer when it doesn't affect you.

[Patrick Bateman 3903]

6 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/27/more-americans-favor-raising-than-lowering-tax-rates-on-corporations-high-household-incomes/

52% want higher taxes, 25% want taxes raised "a lot" on large businesses and corporations. Nitpick me all you want about quantifying all of this, to say that it's a radical left position to raise taxes this high on the most wealthy is not true anymore.

52% want higher taxes on corporations with a quarter of raised by "a lot", not personal marginal tax brackets which is what the reference was.  And only 14% want folk's making over 250k to have their taxes raised a lot, while another 29% want them increased "a little".  And you admit it isn't quantified.  There's long been a proportion who thinks the the wealthy (and to me 250k is not super wealthy) should be taxed more, but taking this information and quantifying by such an extreme it to fit your narrative is irresponsible, at best. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

I was merely referring to many Americans wanting the wealthiest and large corps taxed much more, my apologies if you think that I actually meant this group wanted a 70% marginal tax rate.

Edit: I could have definitely worded that better for sure, but my simple point is that there is a growing body of people who are starting to realize how little the wealthiest contribute in taxes.

Edited January 4, 2019 by GSU&UT

[jimmyjazz 45513]

I think it's wise to put these proposed increases in the top marginal bracket in context:  we practically had a civil war over changes of a few percent.  This country is nowhere near willing to approve anything much above where we are now -- it's just anathema to most people, whether it should be or not.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

I've said it before and again, what every American effectively pays in taxes should be a matter of public record. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I've said it before and again, what every American effectively pays in taxes should be a matter of public record. 

indeed. it's weird that it's not

[HenryJames 65868]

 

[Cacti 191]

1 hour ago, JimmyHoffa said:

The 70% tax rate isn't as crazy as thinking it's even remotely possible to eliminate ALL fossil fuels in 12 years.

So much this.

In September 2017, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard introduced a bill called the OFF Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act (OFF Act), a bill that would require 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 (and 80 percent by 2027), place a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects, ban the export of oil and gas, and also move our automobile and rail systems to 100 percent renewable energy. It has subsequently been folded into the Green New Deal, championed by Cortez.

Trump’s base has been criticized for believing anything he says, no matter how preposterous. And there’s good evidence for that; for example, not a small number of people believed Donald when he said that Mexico would fund building a wall on our Southern border. And that’s just one example; there are plenty of others.    

But how can Gabbard—and more recently, Cortez, along with other Democrats—be taken seriously concerning energy matters when they make a claim that renewables can replace fossil fuels by 2035 (or even reduce our fossil dependence by 80 percent in 8 years)?

What they propose is not possible, but that doesn't stop them from doing exactly what Trump does; that is, they’re making an appeal to a base of uncritical thinkers.

[Anastasis 23375]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

Edit: I could have definitely worded that better for sure, but my simple point is that there is a growing body of people who are starting to realize how little the wealthiest contribute in taxes.

I wonder how many of that growing body of people are also included in the group of the 45-50% of Americans who pay no federal income tax?

[ADHD 28]

Donald Trump (aka "Individual 1") reenacts the toilet paper scene from The Breakfast Club.

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by ADHD

[Brisketexan 104463]

I haven't sharpened my pencil, but I'm pretty sure that with the beating the itemized deduction took this year, I'm going to pay MORE in taxes.  And I'm a pretty high earner (showing my pay stub, etc.).

And here's the thing -- I don't mind paying more in taxes.  I really don't.

What I mind is that 1) I am paying more in taxes, 2) we the people aren't using those tax dollars to fix infrastructure, provide needed services, or even reduce the debt....but instead are 3) massively increasing our deficit and debt so that 4) people much richer than I am can keep more money in their pockets.  That's pretty fucked up.

[InkaUtexas 25424]

Agree 100%. Show me the benefits to what I pay and I am fine. Love that the town I live in found the money to provide free lunches to ALL students, no questions asked, and don't mind if my property tax goes up. 

Balance the budget, reduce the debt, and run the damn country like we should all run our homes. Got surplus, get a good bottle or a hooker. Broke? Enjoy that tuna. 

[David Dennison 18603]

5 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Agree 100%. Show me the benefits to what I pay and I am fine. Love that the town I live in found the money to provide free lunches to ALL students, no questions asked, and don't mind if my property tax goes up. 

Balance the budget, reduce the debt, and run the damn country like we should all run our homes. Got surplus, get a good bottle or a hooker. Broke? Enjoy that tuna. 

Thankfully, this is never, ever going to happen.

[CO Horn 154]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I haven't sharpened my pencil, but I'm pretty sure that with the beating the itemized deduction took this year, I'm going to pay MORE in taxes.  And I'm a pretty high earner (showing my pay stub, etc.).

And here's the thing -- I don't mind paying more in taxes.  I really don't.

What I mind is that 1) I am paying more in taxes, 2) we the people aren't using those tax dollars to fix infrastructure, provide needed services, or even reduce the debt....but instead are 3) massively increasing our deficit and debt so that 4) people much richer than I am can keep more money in their pockets.  That's pretty fucked up.

Very few of my clients are paying more in taxes under the new tax law.  Those that are paying more usually have high unreimbursed employee expenses or investment expenses. We are in the top 2% of income and our tax liability is down around 15-20% under the new tax law. 

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

14 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Agree 100%. Show me the benefits to what I pay and I am fine. Love that the town I live in found the money to provide free lunches to ALL students, no questions asked, and don't mind if my property tax goes up. 

Balance the budget, reduce the debt, and run the damn country like we should all run our homes. Got surplus, get a good bottle or a hooker. Broke? Enjoy that tuna. 

 

Not intending to derail, but assuming you are referring to a public school.....they gained enough Title I students (either by moving into the district, or better accounting of existing students by district officials) that in doing so, they gained enough in reimbursements from the Federal Free & Reduced Lunch Program that they are able to cover the cost of meals for every student.

Point being, this money comes from the federal government, not your local property taxes.  Good for the school in doing the due diligence to ensure this can happen.  And good for you that you wouldn't have minded had your local property taxes covered this.

Carry on everyone.

[InkaUtexas 25424]

Some did, and some was raised through property taxes and cutting admin costs. I understand the Federal system and what they hand out. Just saying, saw it happen and I applauded. Demographics did not change that fast in 1 year. 

[elfenix 34168]

26 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Agree 100%. Show me the benefits to what I pay and I am fine. Love that the town I live in found the money to provide free lunches to ALL students, no questions asked, and don't mind if my property tax goes up. 

Balance the budget, reduce the debt, and run the damn country like we should all run our homes. Got surplus, get a good bottle or a hooker. Broke? Enjoy that tuna. 

the federal government is immortal, has a monopoly on violence, and owes debt in a currency that it can literally print.  it's nothing at all like my home. 

Edited January 4, 2019 by elfenix

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

12 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

Very few of my clients are paying more in taxes under the new tax law.  Those that are paying more usually have high unreimbursed employee expenses or investment expenses. We are in the top 2% of income and our tax liability is down around 15-20% under the new tax law. 

Last Pub presidential candidate who voluntarily revealed his books had an effective tax burden of 12 to 14 percent.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

52 minutes ago, Cacti said:

So much this.

In September 2017, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard introduced a bill called the OFF Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act (OFF Act), a bill that would require 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 (and 80 percent by 2027), place a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects, ban the export of oil and gas, and also move our automobile and rail systems to 100 percent renewable energy. It has subsequently been folded into the Green New Deal, championed by Cortez.

Trump’s base has been criticized for believing anything he says, no matter how preposterous. And there’s good evidence for that; for example, not a small number of people believed Donald when he said that Mexico would fund building a wall on our Southern border. And that’s just one example; there are plenty of others.    

But how can Gabbard—and more recently, Cortez, along with other Democrats—be taken seriously concerning energy matters when they make a claim that renewables can replace fossil fuels by 2035 (or even reduce our fossil dependence by 80 percent in 8 years)?

What they propose is not possible, but that doesn't stop them from doing exactly what Trump does; that is, they’re making an appeal to a base of uncritical thinkers.

Carbon Capture, technology that exists now, should be our stop gap focus, but I have no problem with Dems stating what they want instead of incorporating what they think they can find bipartisan agreement on (lol) as part of their platform.

[woohorn 1131]

Just saw dancing vid (nice tites at :12)

[Zombie 284]

3 minutes ago, woohorn said:

Just saw dancing vid (nice tites at :12)
 

Republicans thought this was a negative view of her? You know how I know you're gay? (NTTIAWWT).

[elfenix 34168]

her poor staffers are going to see so many dick pics.  mike pence is jealous.

[Zombie 284]

9 minutes ago, Zombie said:

Republicans thought this was a negative view of her? You know how I know you're gay? (NTTIAWWT).

To admonish myself and my post, my gay friends would think her dancing was fabulous. So I revise my post to ask, You know how I know you're a prude douche?

[Brandywine 1311]

1 hour ago, woohorn said:

Just saw dancing vid (nice tites at :12)
 

I think she’s a doll. Super cute. Were the Reps ever young? Or, have a sense of fun?

I tell you who also is a knockout, Krysten Sinema from Arizona. I think Hugo posted an image of her being sworn in. Good for Arizona to vote in a woman Senator who’s also bi. 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Brandywine

[Asithappens 974]

4 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I've said it before and again, what every American effectively pays in taxes should be a matter of public record. 

What does "effectively" mean?

What they should pay based on AGI? Before credits or adjustments from prior years?

That shouldn't be public, imo. Why should that be public record for everyone?

[SubliminalHorn 6647]

2 hours ago, Zombie said:

To admonish myself and my post, my gay friends would think her dancing was fabulous. So I revise my post to ask, You know how I know you're a prude douche?

That’s better. This gay man says fuck yeah and slay bitch

[Brew 3044]

3 hours ago, CO Horn said:

Very few of my clients are paying more in taxes under the new tax law.  Those that are paying more usually have high unreimbursed employee expenses or investment expenses. We are in the top 2% of income and our tax liability is down around 15-20% under the new tax law. 

This, if you did not have high miscellaneous itemized deductions, I have a hard time believing a high income person is paying more in tax. The only people I have seen that are paying more are low income people with no kids because of the 10%-12% adjustment and some middle income people with out of the ordinary property taxes.

As far as AOC it would be nice to see the Dems take a moderate position and look for reasonable adjustments to run through. That position is an outlier and turns off people from the other side of the table that are looking for someone with reasonable ideas to follow. It also gives the R’s talking points to rile their base up. Where is the person that will speak for the middle 60% of people and not the 20% of outliers on each side?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

Because the perpetual public debate, the implications and insinuations over who should pay what, who's getting more than their fair share, etc...and how that should be calibrated is meaningless unless there is a light shining on what is source of outrage for many based on some opaque gospel.

 

Tax policy is fair game for campaigns, but the herd gets reticent when something they promote as a matter of public policy comes under scrutiny. It's straight in the GOP/Trump Wheelhouse of Vagueness.

 

You don't calibrate anything without knowing your starting point and it makes no sense to contend "yes, this is public policy and no you can't see".

 

[Brisketexan 104463]

So Brisket doesn’t know what he’s talking about!?! No way. I feel so weird. What is this first time feeling ever????

Or, we have a significant mortgage interest deduction and typically have significant charitable donations as well. You know, exactly like he said - the change has a negative impact on people with high itemized deductions. Like me.
Oh, and it also arbitrarily took away the deductibility of one of our major business expenses (which directly affects my income), but that’s secondary.
Don’t worry. There’s lots of other stuff that I don’t know for shit.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

On 1/2/2019 at 5:26 PM, Underdog said:

That’s a bundle of Dynamite ready to kick some DC ass. 

Also, I plan on printing this out, laminating it for personal use. 

So you're an expert in the tribute photo hobby, are you?

[Anastasis 23375]

40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or, we have a significant mortgage interest deduction and typically have significant charitable donations as well. You know, exactly like he said - the change has a negative impact on people with high itemized deductions. Like me.
Oh, and it also arbitrarily took away the deductibility of one of our major business expenses (which directly affects my income), but that’s secondary.
Don’t worry. There’s lots of other stuff that I don’t know for shit.

Will be interesting see some real world impacts once people file. There is no cap on charitable deductions that I am aware of, and mortgage interest on new loans up to 750k are deductible (old loans are grandfathered using the old cap). Removing the personal deduction is a negative, but unless you hit the 400k income threshold, the expanded CTC amount and threshold will put 2k credit per kid in play so you are trading a 4k deduction for a 2k credit per kid (you do lose the parent's deduction however with no credit offset). The last one moves the needle for me.  That and a little planning with charitable giving to maximize the value of the deduction within a given tax year.  My plan is to take the standard deduction every other year, and itemize on the others. No way around the SALT cap, but there are ways to optimize the rest with a little planning.   

Edited January 5, 2019 by Anastasis

[Js1 85056]

2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

That’s better. This gay man says fuck yeah and slay bitch

Yas Queen 

[Brisketexan 104463]

Will be interesting see some real world impacts once people file. There is no cap on charitable deductions that I am aware of, and mortgage interest on new loans up to 750k are deductible (old loans are grandfathered using the old cap). Removing the personal deduction is a negative, but unless you hit the 400k income threshold, the expanded CTC amount and threshold will put 2k credit per kid in play so you are trading a 4k deduction for a 2k credit per kid (you do lose the parent's deduction however with no credit offset). The last one moves the needle for me.  That and a little planning with charitable giving to maximize the value of the deduction within a given tax year.  My plan is to take the standard deduction every other year, and itemize on the others. No way around the SALT cap, but there are ways to optimize the rest with a little planning.   

Well, then, we’ll see how all the pieces fit together when all is said and done. My accountant is a wiz (worth every penny), we’ll see how things shake out, and what we need to do differently going forward.

[Anastasis 23375]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, then, we’ll see how all the pieces fit together when all is said and done. My accountant is a wiz (worth every penny), we’ll see how things shake out, and what we need to do differently going forward.

Either way, your original point was well made. Nobody wants to turn over a substantial portion of the product of their labor to the government to see it squandered. 

[Brew 3044]

56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or, we have a significant mortgage interest deduction and typically have significant charitable donations as well. You know, exactly like he said - the change has a negative impact on people with high itemized deductions. Like me.
Oh, and it also arbitrarily took away the deductibility of one of our major business expenses (which directly affects my income), but that’s secondary.
Don’t worry. There’s lots of other stuff that I don’t know for shit.

It’s a discussion for another thread, but itemized deductions like mortgage interest and charitable are still deductible. You lose the add on of personal exemptions, but the increase in CTC and the reduction in rates has offset that on everyone I have seen. I’m not saying there is not an exception, but I see too many people throwing that “paying more” comment around when I’ll lay a bet with most that they ultimately don’t because of th two things mentioned. Their deductions may drop, but that doesn’t always equate to more tax paid.

Where the hanging occurs is on unreimbursed business expenses (which as a preparer we separate into itemized deductions and miscellaneous itemized deductions) and you’re going to get bent over the barrel on that one if you have it. However,  most people I deal with were advised to go back 1099 or worked out something with their employer to correct that issue. I qualified my thought as those with UBE being the one exception under the new tax law just for the record.

[Brew 3044]

28 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Will be interesting see some real world impacts once people file. There is no cap on charitable deductions that I am aware of, and mortgage interest on new loans up to 750k are deductible (old loans are grandfathered using the old cap). Removing the personal deduction is a negative, but unless you hit the 400k income threshold, the expanded CTC amount and threshold will put 2k credit per kid in play so you are trading a 4k deduction for a 2k credit per kid (you do lose the parent's deduction however with no credit offset). The last one moves the needle for me.  That and a little planning with charitable giving to maximize the value of the deduction within a given tax year.  My plan is to take the standard deduction every other year, and itemize on the others. No way around the SALT cap, but there are ways to optimize the rest with a little planning.   

You also have the rate structure reduction. A family of 4 with $200k in taxable W-2 income last year and $220k in taxable income this year on the same income with the loss of the personal exemptions is going to pay roughly $5,600 less in tax. That covers a loss of $23k in unreimbursed business expenses or property tax deductions if you had those as well. If it’s over that, you lose. If it’s under that, you saved.

Again, I’m seeing it thrown around quite a bit, but I don’t see it in the numbers. We do a lot of tax returns across all income levels and there has to be a pretty specific set of circumstances for the number to be up year over year.

The tax collection numbers are going to be interesting year over year as I can count several clients right off the top of my head that are into the 7 figures on savings. Those saving 6 figures is a large number which in the grand scheme of things is stupid. These people are reinvesting the money into their business portfolios for the most part, but it didn’t make a difference in their lives. It’s going to be a lot harder for take it back from them.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

The property tax cap alone hits almost half of Austin of homeowners.