Occasi-Cortez Channeling the Rent's too damn high guy

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Yeah we do need to discourage people from the coasts just like we did with them tilling in a dust bowel.

 

Everybody is paying for it... Co-workers are down in Florida still cleaning up after the hurricane.  It's freaking January.

 

I don't deny climate change, but do you want some BS political football punted to everyone?  You want to live there, then live there right, don't expect others to pay.  It's unsustainable, why we have the BS wing of the liberals crying and whining about climate change... Congresswoman proposing idiotic taxes.

 

"We" don't need to discourage them, the market will.

"We" need to let them make their own decisions.

Any idea what property taxes and insurance rates are in those areas?

California is a bit unusual because the effects of Prop 13, eventually the market corrects.

In fact, "we" (gov intervention), have encouraged them by racing FEMA down there everytime there is an incredibly predictable weather disaster.

 

I hope nobody takes that as an objection to humanitarian aid, because it isn't. 

It is simply a claim that "we" do silly things with counterproductive results, and jacking marginal tax brackets to 70%, as proposed by this goof, has already been tried, rejected and adjusted to more reasonable levels.

TO do so to fund an evolution to a no fossil fuel economy in twelve years is the stuff of folks who just don't understand the situation worldwide.

 

[TPS]

18 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Sure...90% tax rates worked fine when the US had no international manufacturing competition and generated half the post-war world's GDP while supporting other major economies via the Marshall Plan.  I'm sure it'll work just fine now when we're 15% of the world GDP while running annual half-trillion dollar trade deficits.

 

How the ***** did Krugman ever win a Nobel Prize?

Can you provide a little more detail on why the 90% marginal personal tax rate is only feasible under the conditions of the 1950s and 1960s? 

Not that i favor a personal tax rate that high, rather I'm interested to hear how a high top personal tax rate is dependent on the structure/dominance of the US economy? A high corporate tax rate can be a problem, but how exactly does the high personal rate depend on it?

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, TPS said:

Can you provide a little more detail on why the 90% marginal personal tax rate is only feasible under the conditions of the 1950s and 1960s? 

Not that i favor a personal tax rate that high, rather I'm interested to hear how a high top personal tax rate is dependent on the structure/dominance of the US economy? A high corporate tax rate can be a problem, but how exactly does the high personal rate depend on it?

 

No, I cannot.  I'm merely pointing out that "it worked in the '50s!" is a stupid oversimplification of a different situation.

[B-Man]

When it comes to the state of the art on the left, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is (to borrow an expression) the tippy tops. She is an idiot’s idiot with a little girl voice that gives expressive form to her thoughts and dreams. If only she were given absolute power, she could produce the kind of rapid change (to borrow another expression) that has reduced Venezuela to poverty and starvation.

 

60 Minutes featured AOC in its lead segment last night. The segment is posted here (both video and, thankfully, transcript). Quotable quote: “I think there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”

Here we get to the heart of the matter:

Anderson Cooper: You’re talking about zero carbon emissions — no use of fossil fuels within 12 years.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: That is the goal. It’s ambitious. And…

Anderson Cooper: How is that possible? Are you talking about everybody having to drive an electric car?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: It’s going to require a lot of rapid change that we don’t even conceive as possible right now. What is the problem with trying to push our technological capacities to the furthest extent possible?

We are in the realm of Imagine. She has no idea (and Anderson Cooper seems to think that electric cars are powered by cotton candy). Cooper only takes up the angle that lies at the heart of every socialist utopia:

Anderson Cooper: This would require, though, raising taxes.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: There’s an element where— yeah. There— people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes.

Anderson Cooper: Do you have a specific on the tax rate?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: You know, it— you look at our tax rates back in the ’60s and when you have a progressive tax rate system. Your tax rate, you know, let’s say, from zero to $75,000 may be ten percent or 15 percent, et cetera. But once you get to, like, the tippy tops —- on your 10 millionth dollar -— sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent. That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more.

{snip}

 

But we will never get there. They never tell us what our “fair share” is because it is 100 percent. We deserve nothing. We have no right to fruit of our own labor. The want it all. As we will recall next month when we celebrate the anniversary of Lincoln’s birth, they offer “the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.”

 

Of course, as Lincoln explained their reasoning — see AOC — it is for our own good. They always bestride the necks of the people, not because they want to, but because we are better off for being ridden.

 

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/shes-the-tippy-tops.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+(Power+Line)

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, TPS said:

Can you provide a little more detail on why the 90% marginal personal tax rate is only feasible under the conditions of the 1950s and 1960s? 

Not that i favor a personal tax rate that high, rather I'm interested to hear how a high top personal tax rate is dependent on the structure/dominance of the US economy? A high corporate tax rate can be a problem, but how exactly does the high personal rate depend on it?

 

Because in a great deal of instances, infinitely more than what was available in the 50'60's boom years in the US,  the business environment is such that a great deal of that personal income can be duplicated abroad. A good deal of income from many operations is ultimately taxed at personal income levels. I know of bunch of people who do just this, offshore.

Extremely uncompetitive rates also discourage off shore entrepreneurs from locating in the US, a source of job creation we have really benefited from. 

Edited January 7, 2019 by sherpa

[B-Large]

Boy is O-C a lightweight, or what?  She's ***** annoying TBH.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

57 minutes ago, B-Large said:

Boy is O-C a lightweight, or what?  She's ***** annoying TBH.

 

Behold, the future of the Democratic party!

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, B-Large said:

Boy is O-C a lightweight, or what?  She's ***** annoying TBH.

 

I wish she'd shut up and dance.

[TPS]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

Because in a great deal of instances, infinitely more than what was available in the 50'60's boom years in the US,  the business environment is such that a great deal of that personal income can be duplicated abroad. A good deal of income from many operations is ultimately taxed at personal income levels. I know of bunch of people who do just this, offshore.

Extremely uncompetitive rates also discourage off shore entrepreneurs from locating in the US, a source of job creation we have really benefited from. 

Just over 1% of all non-corporate businesses make over $1 million, and the number of overall personal tax filings above $10 million (2016) was just over 16,000.  That suggests the number of business owners affected by a higher marginal tax rate above $10 million is pretty small--Finding out the number of those 16,000 taxpayers above $10 million who own a business is the important question, as they would be the only ones affected by AOC's suggestion.  

 

On a Related note, Steve Bannon suggested a millionaire's tax on income above $1 million (44% I think) which would've affected over 320,000 filers.  I don't recall people going crazy about his proposal...? 

[sherpa]

I don't think anybody's "going crazy" about it.

It's just getting the usual "what?" response.

 

Steve Bannon wasn't a Congressman.

 

The worst justification for taking people's money is the claim that it only applies to few.

It's quite easy for "the few" to become "the none."

 

CNBC was just talking about this proposal. They also mentioned that Canada raised the marginal rate on it's top 1%, expecting to raise 3b, but instead it resulted in a 4.6b revenue decrease. Source not provided, but they're almost always accurate on these matters.

 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, sherpa said:

I don't think anybody's "going crazy" about it.

It's just getting the usual "what?" response.

 

Steve Bannon wasn't a Congressman.

 

The worst justification for taking people's money is the claim that it only applies to few.

It's quite easy for "the few" to become "the none."

 

CNBC was just talking about this proposal. They also mentioned that Canada raised the marginal rate on it's top 1%, expecting to raise 3b, but instead it resulted in a 4.6b revenue decrease. Source not provided, but they're almost always accurate on these matters.

 

So it's actually a tax cut! Do it! 

[TPS]

6 hours ago, sherpa said:

I don't think anybody's "going crazy" about it.

It's just getting the usual "what?" response.

 

Steve Bannon wasn't a Congressman.

 

The worst justification for taking people's money is the claim that it only applies to few.

It's quite easy for "the few" to become "the none."

 

CNBC was just talking about this proposal. They also mentioned that Canada raised the marginal rate on it's top 1%, expecting to raise 3b, but instead it resulted in a 4.6b revenue decrease. Source not provided, but they're almost always accurate on these matters.

 

So you have B-man on ignore?

bannon was Trump's chief advisor at the time.

I'd prefer to read an analysis rather than accepting "they're almost always accurate on these matters"...

Just as "the poor will always be with us," so too will the rich....

 

[DC Tom]

9 hours ago, TPS said:

On a Related note, Steve Bannon suggested a millionaire's tax on income above $1 million (44% I think) which would've affected over 320,000 filers.  I don't recall people going crazy about his proposal...? 

 

I don't recall him being a Congressional child darling of the mainstream media having his message broadcast to the nation twice a week.  

[TPS]

7 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I don't recall him being a Congressional child darling of the mainstream media having his message broadcast to the nation twice a week.  

Ha ha, you don’t have to be a darling of the mainstream media to get your message broadcast—they helped trump get elected too. 

So it’s ok to suggest a tax hike on the rich if you’re the chief strategist of the president but not a new congressman. I get it now...

Edited January 8, 2019 by TPS

[Doc Brown]

17 hours ago, TPS said:

Just over 1% of all non-corporate businesses make over $1 million, and the number of overall personal tax filings above $10 million (2016) was just over 16,000.  That suggests the number of business owners affected by a higher marginal tax rate above $10 million is pretty small--Finding out the number of those 16,000 taxpayers above $10 million who own a business is the important question, as they would be the only ones affected by AOC's suggestion.  

 

On a Related note, Steve Bannon suggested a millionaire's tax on income above $1 million (44% I think) which would've affected over 320,000 filers.  I don't recall people going crazy about his proposal...? 

The scary part about Bannon is he is a populist on both the left and the right which I didn't know was possible.  He somehow scapesgoats rich people and immigrants (legal and illegal).  I'm glad he's gone.

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, TPS said:

Ha ha, you don’t have to be a darling of the mainstream media to get your message broadcast—they helped trump get elected too. 

So it’s ok to suggest a tax hike on the rich if you’re the chief strategist of the president but not a new congressman. I get it now...

 

They helped get Trump elected by getting his message broadcast.  

 

And it's ludicrous to pretend that the child legislator darling-of-the-media's statements don't carry more weight than...someone who's basically a dilettante that few take seriously. 

[TPS]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

They helped get Trump elected by getting his message broadcast.  

 

And it's ludicrous to pretend that the child legislator darling-of-the-media's statements don't carry more weight than...someone who's basically a dilettante that few take seriously. 

Exactly. Just as they were fixated on him, so are they with her. "It's the media stupid."

bannon made the suggestion when he was trump's chief of staff. I guess it makes sense that a proposal to raise taxes on millionaires has to come from someone on the right for the right to accept it...

 

[Tiberius]

19 hours ago, TPS said:

Just over 1% of all non-corporate businesses make over $1 million, and the number of overall personal tax filings above $10 million (2016) was just over 16,000.  That suggests the number of business owners affected by a higher marginal tax rate above $10 million is pretty small--Finding out the number of those 16,000 taxpayers above $10 million who own a business is the important question, as they would be the only ones affected by AOC's suggestion.  

 

On a Related note, Steve Bannon suggested a millionaire's tax on income above $1 million (44% I think) which would've affected over 320,000 filers.  I don't recall people going crazy about his proposal...? 

How much longer can we go before the debt/deficits are unsustainable? 

 

Let's say the Dems take both presidency and senate in 2020 and push a, say, $250 billion a year health care bill through. Let's say you were made king of taxes and expenditures, how how you go in paying for it? 

[GG]

11 hours ago, TPS said:

So you have B-man on ignore?

bannon was Trump's chief advisor at the time.

I'd prefer to read an analysis rather than accepting "they're almost always accurate on these matters"...

Just as "the poor will always be with us," so too will the rich....

 

 

There was plenty of criticism of Bannon on these pages, if not specifically about his idiotic call for the 44% millionaires tax.  Good things started to happen when that faux-populist slimeball was kicked out of Trump's orbit.

 

As for your discussion with Tom about why a 90% marginal tax could work in the '50s & 60's, the main reason is that the top rate was an illusion because there were no limits to recognizing losses.  That created a huge industry of limited partnerships whose sole purpose was to generate losses.  Imagine that.  The nominal 90% rate also gave birth to the AMT, once politicians realized that nobody who would be subject to the 90% rate actually paid that rate.  But instead of blowing up the tax code, they introduced another complexity.

 

The beauty of the Reagan tax reform was to blow up all the economy sapping enterprises in return for simplifying the code and normalizing tax rates at levels that are palatable to pay instead of avoid.   Imagine that.

 

That's why most people are stupid, including the main subject of this thread.   Nobody wants to go into the details.

[Foxx]

48 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

How much longer can we go before the debt/deficits are unsustainable? 

 

Let's say the Dems take both presidency and senate in 2020 and push a, say, $250 billion a year health care bill through. Let's say you were made king of taxes and expenditures, how how you go in paying for it? 

how much longer till we rein the government in? they are already past the point of being sustainable.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Foxx