• GOP strategist calls Ocasio-Cortez "the little girl who wants 70% taxes"
    71 replies, posted
The absolute size of the gender imbalance between parties in Congress right now https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/165/c7cbb9dd-6d49-4faa-9b43-55ecd865c772/FT_18.12.11_WomenInCongress_NEW1.png
You do realize that she's 29? You're not even allowed to run for president until you're 35.
I do... but that's not stopping other people from talking like she's going to personally take Trump down.
I've been seeing more stuff in the context of "not now, but further along when she makes a name for herself and has more experience years away, she has a chance."
Whenever I hear proposals regarding comparatively massive hikes in income tax rate in the US (or anywhere really), I can only say this: temper your expectations. Saez and Piketty heralded an 80% top marginal rate as a kind of silver bullet that would solve large state deficits. Not long after that, Hollande in France implemented a 75% income tax after 1m EUR/yr. It lasted about two years until the whole idea was scrapped because the surplus revenue it generated was marginal, millionaires were renouncing their citizenship to move to other countries (although most just evaded it through various creative solutions), France became a much less attractive destination for high-earning professionals (some even left), and it also became less attractive for investors. The last two in particular decreased France's competitiveness, and thus directly hurt their economy. There is a very real risk that a move like this can do more harm than good through means that are not immediately apparent. 70% would be the top bracket marginal rate, so in a progressive income tax system (like in the US), one would certainly bring home more than 300k in this example, due to paying less after income in lower brackets. Fun fact: to be a top 1% earner in the US, you need to have a yearly (combined) income of more than just $300k/yr. There are a lot of professionals who make more than that (anesthesiologists and most surgeons for example have an average pay above 400k/yr according to Glassdoor). There is also the fact that some top executives (Zuckerberg and the Oracle chief comes to mind) have an official income of just $1/year, and they are compensated in other ways, mostly stock options, and (afaik, this is the part where I might be very incorrect) the income after those are taxed in the US as capital gains, and taxes after (long term aka 1+ year) capital gains in the US are between 10-20%. Increasing capital gains taxes in any significant manner is not really possible (nor is it advisable).
nevermind that in the 50s the tax rate was in the 90% range
The 50s also saw the US leading the world in science and industry, as well as having a huge advantage by avoiding the devastation of WW2. It was also an era before globalism made it much easier for the wealthy and corporations to optimize their holdings to avoid heavy taxes. Which is something I think should be fixed, but Kecske's example of France shows why simply instituting higher taxes isn't a panacea.
Where did Piketty herald an 80% tax rate as a silver bullet? Considering the fact that Piketty focuses on wealth distribution, I’d be pretty surprised if he thought a 80% millionaire tax would be any kind of solution.
Why the 1% should pay tax at 80% | Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Pike..
Even with a 91% top marginal tax rate in the US, the top 1% of households only paid roughly 42% of their income as taxes, not all that higher than today(1): https://compote.slate.com/images/fe0a06f5-a089-4f6a-97c7-65238fc05a97.png This includes multiple taxes such as income, property, estate etc. Purely focusing on income taxes, the effective tax rate of the top 1% was around 16,9% The source explains the reasons for this discrepancy (I'd add that beside outright tax avoidance, there were plenty of deductions available). True, the average effective tax rates of the 0,1% and 0,01% earners dropped since with 10% and 15% respectively since then. Not 55% though, as one might think. Besides, a lot has changed globally since the 50s, the US back then could really afford to be not competitive at all regarding their tax policy, more than anytime since.
Oh yeah, I was just keeping things simple to make a point. If I personally earned a million dollars a year then I'd be completely willing to pay 70% of that in taxes to help fund social programs, education, and healthcare because bringing home $300k after taxes is still a ridiculous amount. (Ridiculous enough that I honestly think I'd probably have trouble spending even most of it, let alone all of it.)
january 3rd 2019. they do this every time they don't have full control they start blaming literally everything on the democrats and it works. It even worked to some extent when they did have all control.
Fox News needs to be destroyed.
Loving the number of people who don't know how marginal tax brackets work https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1081677183263875072?s=09
part of the 1% calls taxation of the 1% stupid 🤔🤔🤔
Well, I've only heard about her for the first time yesterday. Two minutes of looking through her twitter feed: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/113002/6783bfa1-bba8-4e9d-ac8c-63d5dbc2d75b/Untitled.png This is her response to someone calling her out on lying about her upbringing. If confronting her is "mansplaining" and that fits her definition of misogyny, I'm a little concerned about unironically "taxing misogyny at 100%". Aside from Ocasio-Cortez shitting on republicans, I don't understand your fascination with her.
Where did she lie about her upbringing @polarbear ?
Maybe you should read up on her political positions and make a more informed judgment, instead of throwing a fit that she used the word "mansplaining" to defend herself against a Daily Wire shithead attempting lowbrow character assassination.
Ooooohh!! She said the word mansplaining! Now I hate her cause she said the word I don't like!!
i can't believe your two minutes of research has given you such a thorough understanding of her, her history, and her politics! were you born this smart or did a strong legged donkey help?
If it became real the GOP would be bankrupt within hours
Absolutely. I've read some of her policies, namely the 70% tax bracket for $10m+ earners. In order to make an informed judgment, I would really like her to respond to some of the criticism and address the concerns people have over this proposed change. I'm free to judge her character as well, which I have a huge issue with. Her response to criticism, personal or political, is ridiculous. Probing her about her campaigns narrative of being a "girl who grew up in the bronx"? Sure, if you want to look at that as character assassination, why not. I don't think your attempt to change the economy is any less valid whether you grew up with financial privilege or in poverty. Literally asking her to debate the proposed tax change, among her other proposed policies? https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/113002/806f3ac1-0b7d-4835-9968-62a777ef190e/Untitled1.png >“Republicans rob everyone the opportunity of real policy debate by resorting to this,” she added. Jesus Christ, the irony. I have a problem with someone whose campaign narrative is to "fight bigotry" that goes and shuts people down by accusing them of being "mansplainers" and not wishing to speak to people asking for a direct debate as "catcallers". Loosely accusing others of misogyny - What kind of response is this?? Why are you okay with this? This is a horrific attitude for anyone in congress. I'll take her seriously when she starts responding to the difficult questions instead of waging more hypocritical twitter wars.
She was born in the Bronx and also lived there after she graduated from college. What's the problem exactly? It's character assassination from a Daily Wire troglodyte pulling the "look at this socialist who lived in a nice neighborhood for a few years." It's a lazy, stupid attack that can be easily dismissed because it's obviously bullshit. And honestly, who fucking cares? Like you said, personal upbringing should have little bearing on what your economic policy is. And lol. Who the fuck cares about what Ben Shapiro has to say? He's a complete charlatan funded by billionaire petroleum executives who is consistently dishonest in the way he argues. Nobody is obligated to get on a stage with that guy. I think you just need to get over it, to be perfectly honest. There's tons more to her platform than just "fight bigotry." Universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, green and renewable energy plans, criminal justice reform, etc. But all you've got is a knee-jerk anti-SJW "wow she said mansplaining and misogyny" response when hacky right-wing actors make charged attacks against her that aren't actually coming from a place of "real policy debate." If you're biggest problem with her is that she doesn't entertain partisan smear merchants and snake oil salesmen, then you need to rethink your political priorities and what you actually value in a politician.
ooh by dick cheney's napkin pundits are pissed.
How is Ben dishonest in the way he argues? What is the issue with two extremely critical people on opposite ends of the political spectrum discussing economy? I think that with such a drastic policy change, you'd want to see the criticism of both sides to hash out the pros and cons. That's fantastic - there are plenty of other democrats that advocate for these changes who have a healthier demeanour towards political debate. I've been a big fan of Obama since he began running for presidency. Thank you for reiterating the entire purpose of my post. I'm not an "anti-sjw kneejerk" poster on a pro-trump facebook group. Her responses to people criticizing her are making me seriously question her thought process. They're not even witty one-liners or something, she is shutting down people confronting her on the sole basis that they are men. What the hell kind of attitude is this for a campaign platform dedicated to fighting bigotry? "You're not allowed to ask me this question in confidence because you're a male" ??? How on earth is this supposed to help address widespread issues like sexism? How the hell do you equate an invitation to debate policy on his talkshow to "catcalling" ??? Was there something disrespectful about the way he asked? I know my political priorities. This rhetoric is not something I ever want someone in political power to display. I'm amazed that you are defending this type of logic. How is loosely calling others misogynists as a direct response to confrontation your idea of a politician with ideal values? And seriously, don't equate me to an Alex Jones follower just because I'm not supporting the same politician as you.
I can't believe someone at facepunch actually fell for that fake news story about Alexandria supposedly "lying" about her upbringing.
To answer your first question, you'd be better off asking in what ways he is honest because the answer would be alot shorter. To answer your second question, the problem here is you're assuming that one of these two people isn't a dickless, dishonest, racist sack of shit.
Sure. Her responses weren't fake, however.
If you're interested in a well-articulated and well-sourced takedown of Ben Shapiro, I recommend this article from Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs. That's fantastic - there are plenty of other democrats that advocate for these changes who have a healthier demeanour towards political debate. I've been a big fan of Obama since he began running for presidency. There really isn't. The number of actual leftists who believe in these policy ideas are few. A lot of Democrats have only recently hopped on board because they're politically savvy enough to know that these ideas are what's popular now and they need to at least pretend that they're on the correct side. Obama is a through and through centrist who didn't push any of these ideas. No more Obamas. I know my political priorities. This rhetoric is not something I ever want someone in political power to display. I'm amazed that you are defending this type of logic. How is loosely calling others misogynists as a direct response to confrontation your idea of a politician with ideal values? She didn't call anybody a misogynist in either of the tweets you posted. Like I said, I think you just need to get over it if these tweets bother you this much, to be honest. And again, Michael Knowles and Ben Shapiro are not honest actors. Call me when Ocasio-Cortez uses "mansplaining" to deflect a serious criticism from a serious person and not from a couple of hacks at the Daily Wire. Then you might have more ground to stand on.
The cutoff for the 1% is ~$400k household income, annually.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.