Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[baldgriff]

Gotta love when she tells Cooper that on your 10millionth dollar you should be taxed at 70%. That if you make more you are obligated to give more to the government.

No one in this world is obligated to give more to the government than another person - no matter how much or little you make! It's inane!

[baldgriff]

Stop it with the whataboutism!

When it comes to AOC, I love that she has fresh ideas and passion. I was a little disappoint with her interview on 60 Minutes. You can't have it both ways.

She has passion - not so sure on the "fresh ideas" and definitely blowing smoke up everyone's ass when she cant understand or put together a sentence about how to pay for any of her plans. Plans which are exceedingly expensive to a point she doesnt appear to comprehend.

[DMT]

Gotta love when she tells Cooper that on your 10millionth dollar you should be taxed at 70%. That if you make more you are obligated to give more to the government.

No one in this world is obligated to give more to the government than another person - no matter how much or little you make! It's inane!

Flat-taxxers are almost as foolish as flat-earthers.

[revo]

Gotta love when she tells Cooper that on your 10millionth dollar you should be taxed at 70%. That if you make more you are obligated to give more to the government.

No one in this world is obligated to give more to the government than another person - no matter how much or little you make! It's inane!

It could be like the luxury tax in baseball! Maybe she's onto something (I keed, I keed).

[baldgriff]

Im no flat earther.

I just believe that we should all be able to spend our money (as much of it as we can) based on our own decisions. Neither one of us is obligated to give a larger percentage of their earnings because we happen to make more than the other person.

[Judge Jude]

Im no flat earther.

I just believe that we should all be able to spend our money (as much of it as we can) based on our own decisions. Neither one of us is obligated to give a larger percentage of their earnings because we happen to make more than the other person.

I'd like to see the accounting that makes THAT work!

[DMT]

Im no flat earther.

I just believe that we should all be able to spend our money (as much of it as we can) based on our own decisions. Neither one of us is obligated to give a larger percentage of their earnings because we happen to make more than the other person.

And that puts you on the fringes of every industrialized nation on earth. You're certainly welcome to your opinions but just realize how extreme they are and perhaps ask why?

[onejayhawk]

Wow, really? Have you ever tuned into Fox News and see how they criticized her for not only these recent comments, but when she claimed she couldn't afford to buy clothes, they dissected her wardrobe? Really J, it's like you're in some nether world.

Maybe this will help:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/25/opini...lah/index.html

I haven't watched broadcast or cable news in a decade. However, dissecting her wardrobe fits comfortably with "leans to amusement." Your CNN story reinforces the premise that Republicans are poking fun at AOC, which they find offensive. Look at it this way, she's the Democratic Dan Quayle.

J

[nots]

And that puts you on the fringes of every industrialized nation on earth. You're certainly welcome to your opinions but just realize how extreme they are and perhaps ask why?

Plenty of countries have a VAT, which is the more practical cousin of the flat tax—maybe we should look at that instead of a DOA 70% upper income level tax.

[gcstomp]

Progressive tax with some larger numbers than we have seen since Reagan days on super wealthy seems solidly rational. When country worked at its best, with not just greatest economic growth but less extreme disparity, from 1981 and prior, around 70% as top marginal rate was in force. Why wasnt it madness then, all thru 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s, and before all thru then but now its unthinkable? And this isnt resulting in the mega wealthy ending up on soup lines, those making only 10 mill a year and below would be taxed at same is it 35%ish, with deductions/creative accounting closer to 15% for many as now.

We are only talking about 2000 people in our country, many pro athletes, musicians and actors making up bulk, with some mega wealthy like Buffett and Gates who have publicly said for decades they believe uber rich should be taxed more. I explained why in prior post for the snarky response why the dont simply voluntarily pay more. Thats not how taxes work, though they give vast amounts to various charities, that is separate to this not unreasonable progressive tax on this small amount of people that has proven to work not only around the world but in our own country for many decades.

Kardashians, Justin Bieber, and Christina Aguilera arent going to decides to earn less because of the 70% tax on 10 mill and above annual earnings, and that is typical profile for the person who makes that much.

[nots]

Progressive tax with some larger numbers than we have seen since Reagan days on super wealthy seems solidly rational. When country worked at its best, with not just greatest economic growth but less extreme disparity, from 1981 and prior, around 70% as top marginal rate was in force. Why wasnt it madness then, all thru 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s, and before all thru then but now its unthinkable? And this isnt resulting in the mega wealthy ending up on soup lines, those making only 10 mill a year and below would be taxed at same is it 35%ish, with deductions/creative accounting closer to 15% for many as now.

We are only talking about 2000 people in our country, many pro athletes, musicians and actors making up bulk, with some mega wealthy like Buffett and Gates who have publicly said for decades they believe uber rich should be taxed more. I explained why in prior post for the snarky response why the dont simply voluntarily pay more. Thats not how taxes work, though they give vast amounts to various charities, that is separate to this not unreasonable progressive tax on this small amount of people that has proven to work not only around the world but in our own country for many decades.

Kardashians, Justin Bieber, and Christina Aguilera arent going to decides to earn less because of the 70% tax on 10 mill and above annual earnings, and that is typical profile for the person who makes that much.

We have had this discussion before in here about the myth of the 1950s higher tax rates, but here’s a brief summary:

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

Additionally, the Tax reform Act of 1986 closed many loopholes, which makes comparing the tax rates prior to that to today’s wrong.
The other thing the isn’t mentioned is that if the rate on 10M+ is raised from 38 to 70%, the rate on incomes between X and 9.999M are going to be raised as well.
Finally, while some folks like Bieber and Aguilera might not be able to shift their earnings to capital gains, most of the big earners will able to.

[gcstomp]

nots, its ok that we disagree. but yes, we disagree all over. the tax rates were, in fact higher, not just a myth. And while you say most earners wont be able to shift earnings, as I said we are talking about maybe 2000 people in a county of 325 million, and of those 2000, most are athletes, musicians, and actors. a simple survey from the people who would actually be paying higher rates, would be pro higher taxes on themselves as these are not 9 to 5ers grinding out higher wages, these are a fortunate handful of people who know they are blessed to be in their position an would welcome paying their share. and just becuase you say it would be a lifting of all percentages, its just not what the argument is.

the AOC suggestion is exactly same rates, except for that number above 10 mill a year. Weird, I knew before you posted, that it would be almost word for word what you said, but again, all good we disagree.

[gcstomp]

If commenting about AOC suggestion, then its same brackets as now, until 10 mill annual earnings and that amount at 70%. Again, your link is about top 1%, while AOC suggestion would touch only 2000 people of 325 million means its a smaller fraction, top 1 of 160,000ish. Does it make sense that people who are actually in this bracket agree it would be fair, while those outside, or every 159,999 out of 160,000 people, or put another way, every person you know, have known, or will ever know, will have various other arguments despite this having nothing to do with them.

[nots]

nots, its ok that we disagree. but yes, we disagree all over. the tax rates were, in fact higher, not just a myth. And while you say most earners wont be able to shift earnings, as I said we are talking about maybe 2000 people in a county of 325 million, and of those 2000, most are athletes, musicians, and actors. a simple survey from the people who would actually be paying higher rates, would be pro higher taxes on themselves as these are not 9 to 5ers grinding out higher wages, these are a fortunate handful of people who know they are blessed to be in their position an would welcome paying their share. and just becuase you say it would be a lifting of all percentages, its just not what the argument is.

the AOC suggestion is exactly same rates, except for that number above 10 mill a year. Weird, I knew before you posted, that it would be almost word for word what you said, but again, all good we disagree.

The myth isn’t that the rates were as high as 91%, the myth is that anyone paid near that. You can see from the chart in the previous link, the effective tax rate is slightly lower than back then but more or less the average of where it’s been the last 60+ years.
Also, according to IRS tables (https://www.quora.com/How-many-peopl...dollars-a-year), 18061 people filed an AGI over $10M in 2016, a lot more than the 2000 you quoted. Additionally, I have my doubts that those higher earners would ‘welcome paying their share’. Most, if not all, pay tax accountants to specifically and aggressively find deductions and loopholes (as they should).

[nots]

In order to pay for these new programs, the rates are going to have to increase for everyone, especially the middle class. I read (but can not find the link) that we have the lowest middle class tax rates of the countries most similar to ours (UK, NZ, Aus, Canada) and that we have the highest % of people paying no Federal Income tax. I thought I read it on Bloomberg or RCP, but I can’t find it. If anyone has a link, please forward.