Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[bad_teammate 13194]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

It's a #bothsides proposition. 

Go fuck yourself.

The right wants to raise debt burdens in order to make the rich richer and build the military/security state. The left wants to raise debt burdens to increase the middle class's access to healthcare, retirement, and education.

[Revolution512 1487]

Someone will have to explain what everyone’s “fair” share is of something I worked for. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Well if we play it that way, we’ll need to figure out what your tax dollars contribute to percentage wise to all public services and then that’s all you’re entitled to use.

You good with only being able to use
.000000000007 of the interstate highway system or .000065 of your local emergency services or only get severe weather alerts on the second Tuesday every third April?

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

1 hour 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 tell me why it matters to you that the Nordic countries are homogenous. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Please tell me why it matters to you that the Nordic countries are homogenous. 

It doesn't, I was just adding adjectives that describe a nation that has nothing in common with a nation of 350 million citizens, and 50 times the land mass. 

[elfenix 34230]

11 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Someone will have to explain what everyone’s “fair” share is of something I worked for. 

[bad_teammate 13194]

15 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Someone will have to explain what everyone’s “fair” share is of something I worked for. 

Going from 0% to 1% taxation is a bigger ideological and ethical jump than going from 1% to 90%. You should dial back the emotionalist outrage at the idea of theft unless you're willing to make a pretty strong argument that isn't just haggling over a few percentage points.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It doesn't, I was just adding adjectives that describe a nation that has nothing in common with a nation of 350 million citizens, and 50 times the land mass. 

Everyone who cites the homogeneity of the Nordic countries as a reason for why we can't have successful socialistic policies in America always backs off the second you question them. We get it -- you don't want your tax money going to Chuy, Abdul or LaKeisha. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by MaybeACoordinator

[Message Board User 12395]

 

[Revolution512 1487]

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Going from 0% to 1% taxation is a bigger ideological and ethical jump than going from 1% to 90%. You should dial back the emotionalist outrage at the idea of theft unless you're willing to make a pretty strong argument that isn't just haggling over a few percentage points.

I need to make an argument for what exactly? Wanting to keep what I work for?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

18 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Everyone who cites the homogeneity of the Nordic countries as a reason for why we can't have successful socialistic policies in America always backs off the second you question them. We get it -- you don't want your tax money going to Chuy, Abdul or LaKeisha. 

STFU that's not even remotely true. they are a homogeneous population. Had he used France I wouldn't have used the term.  It's a descriptor of their nation. Small landmass with a homogeneous population ohhh gasp that's racist !!!

It hasn't got a fucking thing to do with my feelings about who gets tax relief or the tax shaft here.  

[Anastasis 23469]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

 We can effect substantive change without raising taxes on anyone.

 

[Revolution512 1487]

38 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Well if we play it that way, we’ll need to figure out what your tax dollars contribute to percentage wise to all public services and then that’s all you’re entitled to use.

You good with only being able to use
.000000000007 of the interstate highway system or .000065 of your local emergency services or only get severe weather alerts on the second Tuesday every third April?

Sure. You ok with giving politicians more money to buy votes?

[David Dennison 18854]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

STFU that's not even remotely true. they are a homogeneous population. Had he used France I wouldn't have used the term.  It's a descriptor of their nation. Small landmass with a homogeneous population ohhh gasp that's racist !!!

It hasn't got a fucking thing to do with my feelings about who gets tax relief or the tax shaft here.  

What does being homogenous have to do with it?

[Anastasis 23469]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

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.

The last few pages have been focused on personal income tax, in particular the addition of a new marginal tax bracket. I have contended that you cant tweak the personal income tax to effect meaningful change without making broader changes that impact the meat of the distribution. I am clearly a lunatic fringe hack.  

Edited January 16, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23469]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Go fuck yourself.

 The right wants to raise debt burdens in order to make the rich richer and build the military/security state. The left wants to raise debt burdens to increase the middle class's access to healthcare, retirement, and education.

I apologize for expecting more from you. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Here’s AOC’s power in two images:

[bolverk 29660]

11 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Sure. You ok with giving politicians more money to buy votes?

Give us your opinion on Citizens United.

Spoiler

 

 

[Brew 3049]

2 hours 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. 

That’s not completely accurate. In 2015 the top .1% had AGI over $2.25M, accounted for 140k tax returns, and paid $284B in taxes or 19.50% of total tax collections. If you adjust the top bracket to the rates mentioned above, it would make a substantial difference in tax collections. 

[CooterBrown 18006]

How about just dropping the tax bracket rates but getting rid of all deductions?

 

 

[Brew 3049]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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

To you maybe. I think it’s fucking ludicrous as I might have mentioned. There is nothing emotional about that response though. There are ways to clean up the tax system, collect the same rate on different income types, bring up the effective tax rate, etc. without getting stupid. 

[Anastasis 23469]

7 minutes ago, Brew said:

That’s not completely accurate. In 2015 the top .1% had AGI over $2.25M, accounted for 140k tax returns, and paid $284B in taxes or 19.50% of total tax collections. If you adjust the top bracket to the rates mentioned above, it would make a substantial difference in tax collections. 

Depends how you model it: https://taxfoundation.org/70-percent-tax-initial-analysis/

[Anastasis 23469]

7 minutes ago, Brew said:

To you maybe. I think it’s fucking ludicrous as I might have mentioned. There is nothing emotional about that response though. There are ways to clean up the tax system, collect the same rate on different income types, bring up the effective tax rate, etc. without getting stupid.

[Anastasis 23469]

7 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

How about just dropping the tax bracket rates but getting rid of all deductions?

 

 

And refundable credits. 

[wildcat09 29349]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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.

This is probably the most savage burn I've ever seen on the politics board.

[bad_teammate 13194]

35 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The last few pages have been focused on personal income tax, in particular the addition of a new marginal tax bracket. I have contended that you cant tweak the personal income tax to effect meaningful change without making broader changes that impact the meat of the distribution. I am clearly a lunatic fringe hack.  

What do you even mean by "effect meaningful change"? It's vague bullshit because, as is typical for you, you don't really have a specific argument (or even set of values that you care enough to present).

Move the needle. Effect meaningful change. Blah blah.

Move what needle? Effect what change?

49 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

I need to make an argument for what exactly? Wanting to keep what I work for?

I guess if you want to frame it that way, yes.

[Anastasis 23469]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What do you even mean by "effect meaningful change"? It's vague bullshit because, as is typical for you, you don't really have a specific argument (or even set of values that you care enough to present).

 Move the needle. Effect meaningful change. Blah blah.

 Move what needle? Effect what change?

 

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

We can effect substantive change without raising taxes on anyone.

 

Well go right ahead and tell us all how we are going to "effect substantive change without raising taxes on anyone". 

Tell us all your specific arguments and set of values that you care enough to present. Move the needle. What change? Proceed. Or just fuck your own face. Either way.   

Edited January 16, 2019 by Anastasis

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20395]

SOMEBODY needs to pay for the massive government the Republicans have inflicted upon us. Should it be:

 

1) The wealthy

2) The impoverished
3) Future generations of unborn taxpayers

[bad_teammate 13194]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Well go right ahead and tell us all how we are going to "effect substantive change without raising taxes on anyone". 

Single-payer universal healthcare and free public tuition, passed this session and implemented ASAP. There's a start. No changes to the tax code needed.

[Anastasis 23469]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Single-payer universal healthcare and free public tuition, passed this session and implemented ASAP. There's a start. No changes to the tax code needed.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Sure. You ok with giving politicians more money to buy votes?

What does this even mean?

Republicans have forfeited their right to play pretend about their spending habits.

Both parties spend like drunken sailors.

But it’s only the Republicans who then turn around and give tax cuts to those who need it least and to corporations.

I absolutely don’t mind contributing to the betterment of my country through taxes. And I’d rather see my money go to improved infrastructure and higher education and scientific research and healthcare over the military or an useless border wall.

Both parties are going to spend our money. Only one wants to spend it things that make sense and are for the betterment of the people. Only one party is honest about the fact that sometimes taxes need to be raised to cover the spending.

Anyone that still believes the myth of the Republican Party as the party of fiscal responsibility is too dumb to even engage with.

And frankly, the whole selfish “I got mine. Fuck the common good.” attitude is a huge contributor to the mess our country is in.

So if a politician tells me they want to spend my tax dollars on programs and policies that I think will benefit a majority of it’s citizens, then consider my vote bought.

[Anastasis 23469]

I'm stunned. I'm pissed. It's...... 

[jimmyjazz 45899]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It doesn't, I was just adding adjectives that describe a nation that has nothing in common with a nation of 350 million citizens, and 50 times the land mass. 

Explain the differences, in some detail.  You can start by explaining how federal programs such as the military, our highway system, etc. differ on a per capita basis and therefore our tax structures should be different.

It may very well be true.  Fencing is less expensive per acre on a larger field than on a smaller field, so maybe there's a similar (yet opposite) thing at play here -- federal expenditures could be less burdensome for individuals in smaller countries.  I don't know.   At least show some work instead of just saying "hey, those two countries are different, slow down, pahdner".

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

STFU that's not even remotely true. they are a homogeneous population. Had he used France I wouldn't have used the term.  It's a descriptor of their nation. Small landmass with a homogeneous population ohhh gasp that's racist !!!

It hasn't got a fucking thing to do with my feelings about who gets tax relief or the tax shaft here.  

Predictable. Call out a closet racist statement and get a rage-out in response. 

[Revolution512 1487]

20 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

What does this even mean?

Republicans have forfeited their right to play pretend about their spending habits.

Both parties spend like drunken sailors.

But it’s only the Republicans who then turn around and give tax cuts to those who need it least and to corporations.

I absolutely don’t mind contributing to the betterment of my country through taxes. And I’d rather see my money go to improved infrastructure and higher education and scientific research and healthcare over the military or an useless border wall.

Both parties are going to spend our money. Only one wants to spend it things that make sense and are for the betterment of the people. Only one party is honest about the fact that sometimes taxes need to be raised to cover the spending.

Anyone that still believes the myth of the Republican Party as the party of fiscal responsibility is too dumb to even engage with.

And frankly, the whole selfish “I got mine. Fuck the common good.” attitude is a huge contributor to the mess our country is in.

So if a politician tells me they want to spend my tax dollars on programs and policies that I think will benefit a majority of it’s citizens, then consider my vote bought.

 

Liberal logic at its finest. Always pretending to be the party of compassion. It’s the same crock of shit it’s always been. 

News flash, Democrats wanted that useless wall a whopping six years ago. By itself it’s useless but let’s not pretend Democrats give two shits about border security these days. They don’t vote that way. We all know what party is after the votes coming across.

I don’t consider either party fiscally responsible, why would I offer more of my tax dollars to waste? Neither side of the isle is in it for the people. Trump’s tariffs are taxes on consumers.

You don’t continue raising taxes to pay for things. Christ, that’s ignorant. There’s money to pay for the things most Americans want and then some. Your vote should be bought by the people who are willing to fix the problems.

Trade policy can not be fixed with tariffs. Understand why you can’t compete and fix that. Debt crisis and life’s imperfections don’t deserve more tax dollars. Hold these leaders accountable, funding their insane ideas will be disastrous.

 

[David Dennison 18854]

Debt crisis is funny.

[Tom 2959]

27 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

By itself it’s useless but let’s not pretend Democrats give two shits about border security these days. They don’t vote that way. We all know what party is after the votes coming across.

 

 

You are aware that illegal immigrants can't vote, right?  And whatever happened to Obama being the "deporter-in-chief"?  Apparently Democrats didn't feel like they needed all those votes of people (who can't even vote anyway) when they ran the executive branch.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Tom

[Bama Chick 28596]

Liberal logic at its finest. Always pretending to be the party of compassion. It’s the same crock of shit it’s always been. 
News flash, Democrats wanted that useless wall a whopping six years ago. By itself it’s useless but let’s not pretend Democrats give two shits about border security these days. They don’t vote that way. We all know what party is after the votes coming across.
I don’t consider either party fiscally responsible, why would I offer more of my tax dollars to waste? Neither side of the isle is in it for the people. Trump’s tariffs are taxes on consumers.
You don’t continue raising taxes to pay for things. Christ, that’s ignorant. There’s money to pay for the things most Americans want and then some. Your vote should be bought by the people who are willing to fix the problems.
Trade policy can not be fixed with tariffs. Understand why you can’t compete and fix that. Debt crisis and life’s imperfections don’t deserve more tax dollars. Hold these leaders accountable, funding their insane ideas will be disastrous.
 

Okay so you’re still living in 2011. Makes sense.

Have a good night.

[Revolution512 1487]

9 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

You are aware that illegal immigrants can't vote, right?  And whatever happened to Obama being the "deporter-in-chief"?  Apparently Democrats didn't feel like they needed all those votes of people (who can't even vote anyway) when they ran the executive branch.

Haha what? There are cities in California registering illegal immigrants.

[Revolution512 1487]

9 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Okay so you’re still living in 2011. Makes sense.

Have a good night.
 

 

A supporter of MMT should most definitely bow out. The leftists are intellectually bankrupt.

[burntorangebongos 10710]

44 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Haha what? There are cities in California registering illegal immigrants.

Link proof of this because I can't find it.

[Bama Chick 28596]

A supporter of MMT should most definitely bow out. The leftists are intellectually bankrupt.

Not bowing out, just not interested in discussing anything with someone so obviously regurgitating programmed Limbaugh and Fox News bullshittery from the Bush/Obama years.

And I was trying to be polite but you’re acting like a dick to people having a discussion in good faith.

So take my “Have a good night” and shove it up your smelly asshole. That’s the opening behind your small dick. I know rightists are morally bankrupt so you should enjoy the experience.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

4 hours ago, Revolution512 said:

Liberal logic at its finest. Always pretending to be the party of compassion. It’s the same crock of shit it’s always been. 

News flash, Democrats wanted that useless wall a whopping six years ago. By itself it’s useless but let’s not pretend Democrats give two shits about border security these days. They don’t vote that way. We all know what party is after the votes coming across.

I don’t consider either party fiscally responsible, why would I offer more of my tax dollars to waste? Neither side of the isle is in it for the people. Trump’s tariffs are taxes on consumers.

You don’t continue raising taxes to pay for things. Christ, that’s ignorant. There’s money to pay for the things most Americans want and then some. Your vote should be bought by the people who are willing to fix the problems.

Trade policy can not be fixed with tariffs. Understand why you can’t compete and fix that. Debt crisis and life’s imperfections don’t deserve more tax dollars. Hold these leaders accountable, funding their insane ideas will be disastrous.

 

Wow, the dumbassedness is strong in this one.

[Zonahorn 8079]

5 hours ago, Revolution512 said:

A supporter of MMT should most definitely bow out. The leftists are intellectually bankrupt.

You are retarded.

[CooterBrown 18006]

Link proof of this because I can't find it.

Check your inbox for the email with the subject line FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: BEANERS ARE VOTING IN COMMIEFORNIA!!!!

[Revolution512 1487]

7 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

Link proof of this because I can't find it.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article220834725.html

[bad_teammate 13194]

8 hours ago, Revolution512 said:

News flash, Democrats wanted that useless wall a whopping six years ago. By itself it’s useless but let’s not pretend Democrats give two shits about border security these days. They don’t vote that way. We all know what party is after the votes coming across.

1 - The Democrats wanted a big, beautiful wall.
OR
2 - The Democrats don't care about border security.

You can pick one, bud, but you can't have both. the Democrats care(d) a lot about border security, and they got results. Deportations went way up under Obama and illegal crossings went down. They moved hard right (like they pretty much always do), got the results Republicans claim to want, and got no credit from Republicans for doing so.

Quote

I don’t consider either party fiscally responsible, why would I offer more of my tax dollars to waste? Neither side of the isle is in it for the people. Trump’s tariffs are taxes on consumers.

Spending government money to ensure everyone has healthcare isn't being "in it for the people"? Who is it for, then?

Quote

You don’t continue raising taxes to pay for things. Christ, that’s ignorant. There’s money to pay for the things most Americans want and then some. Your vote should be bought by the people who are willing to fix the problems.

Word soup.

[safe sex 11709]

You're upset about undocumented people in California voting in school board elections? Are you serious? Get the fuck out.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

Liberal logic at its finest. Always pretending to be the party of compassion. It’s the same crock of shit it’s always been. 
News flash, Democrats wanted that useless wall a whopping six years ago. By itself it’s useless but let’s not pretend Democrats give two shits about border security these days. They don’t vote that way. We all know what party is after the votes coming across.
I don’t consider either party fiscally responsible, why would I offer more of my tax dollars to waste? Neither side of the isle is in it for the people. Trump’s tariffs are taxes on consumers.
You don’t continue raising taxes to pay for things. Christ, that’s ignorant. There’s money to pay for the things most Americans want and then some. Your vote should be bought by the people who are willing to fix the problems.
Trade policy can not be fixed with tariffs. Understand why you can’t compete and fix that. Debt crisis and life’s imperfections don’t deserve more tax dollars. Hold these leaders accountable, funding their insane ideas will be disastrous.
 

Like Gillian’s Isle, or...?

[Brew 3049]

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Depends how you model it: https://taxfoundation.org/70-percent-tax-initial-analysis/

I was going with the numbers being thrown around by people in this thread as their thoughts, not her proposal. You could generate significant revenue by making adjustments to the top 1% without dipping into the middle. There are 1.4M returns in that range with an average AGI over $2M, the lowest AGI of around $480k, and tax collections of roughly 40%.