Ocasio-Cortez floats 70% tax on top earners

[Danoh]

2 % own 90 % of all the wealth in America . People with 10's of billions one person having 150 billion ? .The problem is once they buy all the mansions , jets, yachts , they have nothing more they could possibly buy .They park their $$$ in a swiss bank account so there is less $$$ in the American economy for everyone else . Thats why the real income of the middle class has gone down from 20 yrs ago. Of course people don't notice as much cause they have brought all the cheap Chinese stuff in paying slave wages .So the consequences are keep doing the same thing and lower the incomes of the middle class even more or tax these multi billionaires with more $$$$ than they need or could ever spend so the $$$ gets back into the American economy .

That is exactly what AOC was talking about, the need for a tiered system of taxing people - where one is taxed so much on income up to a certain amount, and then taxed a bit more on any income after that, and up to a certain level of income, and so on.

This allows the rich their wealth while taxing them more on income beyond that, that they don't really need anyway.

Does a Bill Gates really need another Billion?

For what?

One more mansion?

For what?

Of course, back when this system was in operation, the super rich it mostly impacted had access to all sorts of loopholes that would allow them to recapture a good portion of what they'd paid in taxes.

In the meantime, the government had access to all that short term loan from them, for various social programs in the public sector, which is what one aspect of taxes is for, anyway.

But, the media - on all sides - has seen that there is a buck to be made in repeatedly distorting every aspect of AOC - her every word, action, style of dress, dance moves, you name it.

I find the whole thing on their part and that of many of their readers, continually amusing.

Here is a better article (with support resources) on what AOC had actually been referring to...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is floating a 70 percent top tax rate — here’s the research that backs her up

 

[Yekcidmij]

That is exactly what AOC was talking about, the need for a tiered system of taxing people - where one is taxed so much on income up to a certain amount, and then taxed a bit more on any income after that, and up to a certain level of income, and so on.

This allows the rich their wealth while taxing them more on income beyond that, that they don't really need anyway.

Does a Bill Gates really need another Billion?

For what?

One more mansion?

For what?

Why should you get to decide what people "need?"

 

[Percivale]

Well Warren Buffet has promoted a "fair Share plan" we could try.
He says he should pay the same tax rate as his secretary, at least.

The Buffett Rule is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011. The tax plan would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than one million dollars a year.
Warren Buffett has a simple explanation for why rich Americans should...

This seems a good place to start the "tax the rich" experiment.

Why go to the Cortez plan of keeping other policy in place and jumping to 70% when a person with some investment experience says that a 30% minimum is a good plan? I'd take my advice from a guy from Nebraska who has always invested in America and wants it to profit.

Warren Buffett still lives in the Omaha, Nebraska, home he bought in 1958 for $31,000.

Would that be achieved by taxing unearned income at the same rate as earned income? However it was done it sounds like a good idea.

 

[SkyWriting]

Would that be achieved by taxing unearned income at the same rate as earned income? However it was done it sounds like a good idea.

Yes, I think that's what he had in mind. His growth in stock value would be counted as spendable income and taxed.

 

[SkyWriting]

Does a Bill Gates really need another Billion?
For what?
One more mansion?
For what?

Some jobs:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Jobs/Bill-and-Melinda-Gates-Foundation-Jobs-E9097.htm

Some people:
Bill Gates – Microsoft’s founder, Bill Gates, is the second most charitable billionaire in the world. He donates to philanthropic causes through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which was founded in 2002 and is now the largest private foundation in the United States. Gates has donated over $41 billion (more than 45% of his wealth) to charitable causes, with a particular focus on helping developing countries combat malaria and infectious disease, and supporting basic nutrition.

 

[DZoolander]

I always find discussions on taxation really annoying, because by far most people don't seem to understand how taxation really works - because they don't understand the idea of how progressive taxation works.

 

[tulc]

Why should you get to decide what people "need?"

Because Danoh is cool and knows things.
tulc(since Yekcidmij asked)

 

[Radagast]

the need for a tiered system of taxing people - where one is taxed so much on income up to a certain amount, and then taxed a bit more on any income after that, and up to a certain level of income, and so on.

The United States already has that.

 

[DZoolander]

The United States already has that.

Exactly why I said that most people I hear talking about taxes have no idea how taxes actually work...lol On both sides of the aisle.

Yes, that's what the US has, a progressive tax system. lol

 

[Radagast]

Exactly why I said that most people I hear talking about taxes have no idea how taxes actually work...lol On both sides of the aisle.

You'd think if people pay them, they'd find out how they work.

Here in Australia, the exact details of the tax brackets are a matter of considerable public debate.

 

[Danoh]

Exactly why I said that most people I hear talking about taxes have no idea how taxes actually work...lol On both sides of the aisle.

Yes, that's what the US has, a progressive tax system. lol

My first year in business, I made four times what I'd made the previous year working for someone else.

I forget what the tax rates were then, but I do recall I not only ended up paying more in taxes, but I still had more left over after taxes, than I'd had the previous year.

I was fine with that.

Here is an interesting article...

Paul Krugman shuts down right wing talking points against higher tax rates on top incomes: ‘Backed by solid economics’

https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/do...cism-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-tax-policy/

 

[Yekcidmij]

My first year in business, I made four times what I'd made the previous year working for someone else.

I forget what the tax rates were then, but I do recall I not only ended up paying more in taxes, but I still had more left over after taxes, than I'd had the previous year.

I was fine with that.

Here is an interesting article...

Paul Krugman shuts down right wing talking points against higher tax rates on top incomes: ‘Backed by solid economics’

https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/do...cism-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-tax-policy/

I find Krugman's counter argument unpersuasive. Being against a 70% tax on high incomes doesn't mean that one is against any tax whatsoever any more than being for 70% tax rate means one is for taxing all of one's income. You could take Krugman's argument for being in favor of a 70% tax and make the negative argument: isn't that an argument for taxing all of one's income? Sure, the argument "from the right" could also be used as an argument against any taxation at all, but it looks to me like you could take the reasons in favor of a 70% tax and say, "well, that same argument could be made to take all of one's income!"

To me it's more nuanced. We should start with the premise that what you earn with your labor is your property and then we can discuss wheter or not taxation is necessary (I believe it is, see Robert Nozick's "State, Anarchy, and Utopia", which I'm not sure Krugman is familiar with) and if so what rate would be acceptable and appropriate. I'm not sure with Cortez (and possibly Krugman) that we agree on the axiom that your income is your property and so it becomes a little futile to argue over the appropriate rate. I think she probably begins with the axiom that your income is society's property (ie, the state) and you get to keep some amount that "society" deems acceptable, where I (and I'm sure some of the phantoms "from the right") would start with income being your property and the state gets to keep a minimally necessary amount.

I also find it unpursuasive that because someone

 

[Yekcidmij]

What I find interesting is that 70% is what top earners paid in the 1950s, a time period that conservatives in particular look back to nostalgically.

But did they actually pay 70%? Or was that the marginal rate? Or was that the average rate?

I can only assume this is the data she's being fed: U.S Individual Income Tax: Tax Rates for Regular Tax: Highest Bracket

The 1950's show quite a high tax rate, no doubt. But the fine print adds the nuance we need:

"Tax rates exclude the effect of tax credits (which reduce the tax liability),...." (among other footnotes)
​

In fact, Piketty (not exactly your token conservative) estimates that the average tax rates in the 1950's weren't that much different than today.

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2017.pdf
Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

So why 70%?