• Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% Tax Idea Isn’t Very Radical
    171 replies, posted
The first thing I thought when I heard the proposal on TV was "Oh, so she wants taxes to be like they are in Europe then."
The actual amount of revenue raised would almost certainly be much smaller. This is because the well-off have many ways to avoid paying income taxes, using loopholes that we should think about closing up.  Many of these loopholes involve changing ordinary income to capital gains, which are taxed at much lower rates, so raising the capital gains tax will be crucial. Yep, kill loopholes, also tax capital gains at 70% ans start funding IRS properly and see how fast money would come in. But the "financial conservative" Republicans won't do jack shit and we all now it.
Fuck the rich honestly, they screwed this country up big time how tf do you have all that money and then try to weasel your way out of paying your fair share in taxes while the majority of the rest of us have no problem with it but are barely scrounging by?
Because greed turns you into a disgusting sociopath.
maybe just coincidental but the IRS's funding has been shrinking while our tax revanue has been
This but for absolute real. People don't understand just what being someone who owns a business does to your mental state. You begin to feel like you deserve much better than the people who are working for someone else just because you made a business and aren't like the "chumps" that are beneath you. In most private businesses only one or a couple of people hold absolute control, and that control gets to you as you have the power to wield over all of your employee's lives, deciding what they do, what they're paid, what time they get, etc. It's scary just how much things change when you're on the opposite side of a normal employer/employee relationship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHys1jc2Png This video goes into it pretty well though it's a little preachy about the idea of capitalist themselves.
and jealousy turns you into a FILTHY COMMUNIST! or a capitalist. not sure really.
Yeah this guy is totally not biased towards anything starting with "c" and ending in "apitalism" at all. This alone would bring in billions to redistribute. And "billions" is not an exaggeration.
Once again bias isn't necessarily a bad thing, you just have to weigh the evidence presented, and he goes pretty well into his personal experience as an entrepreneur.
His personal experience isn't any indication of inherent faults in the system. It's a fucking anecdote. Anyone who's thinking about it, don't bother looking at more of his (noncompete's) videos, it's just more posturing and meaningless claptrap. Even his series on how an anarchist society would function is 80% railing against capitalism and 20% drivel without any realistic framework of how a globalized world would work. As I've noticed is fairly standard among this literature.
its the other way around usually, most people that get rich do so by being sociopaths that take advantage of others to climb up, that or being incredibly lucky are basically the only ways to become rich nowadays
Can we have a conversation about spending cuts first? What use are taxes when they are going to be wasted as usual?
Yes, it does. We've seen time and time again throughout history that when people gain power they often do form egotistical mindsets of themselves being greater than others. It's like the saying, "power corrupts". Owning a business is a form of holding power over others as your employees. It makes perfect sense as to why then business owners as well gain a sort of mindset that they're better than the people working for them, and helps explain a lot of their actions especially those against ideas that would help everyone, including themselves. It's an inherent flaw in the capitalist system that needs to be addressed. Yes his video and anecdote aren't definitive proof of that matter and it doesn't mean that every business owner is a sociopathic egotist who hates their employees, but when put in context it makes sense and is a good explanation of the problem of why business seem to not give a shit about their employees, as well as a good explanation for why he became as radicalized as he did. Perhaps the rest of his videos are drivel but that doesn't mean it disqualifies this one.
Because it doesn't matter how much spending we cut. Public services have already been in a huge decline since the Reagan tax cut. Public agencies have lost an incredible amount of funds because of the neoconservative of taking an axe to taxes. Our roads are deteriorating, our schools can't keep teacher's salaries tied to inflation much less hire any new ones, even the health inspection agencies rarely have the time to keep health inspectors on a site for more than a few minutes since they can't afford any more inspectors. This isn't to even mention we have an incredibly massive deficit combined with a metric fuckton of debt that even if we were to cut military spending, I highly doubt we'd break even. Unless Americans accept a tax raise this country will continue to deteriorate.
Such foolish incivility from the people being biased against the system that's chocking our entire planet to death.
or you know. Pass legislation so that doesn't happen once we implement better tax laws. Instead of just rolling over and taking it like a bitch.
Power corrupts is neither an axiom nor an absolute. For every cunt of a small business owner I can give you an example of someone who genuinely cares about their workers, which is why throwing stupid anecdotes around without any research or methodological approach is retarded and one of the big problems with these stupid propagandistic videos.. The inherent flaw in the capitalist system is that it doesn't curb exploitation, which is why heavily regulated capitalism with very, very strong workers rights and unions is the best way to go about things. Not a single anticapitalist has ever been able to explain (either directly to me or in the literature I've read) how, in a non-capitalist system in a pre-scarcity (as opposed to post-scarcity) society I would be able to buy a new cpu, with billions of transistors which took years of manpower to research, made of materials excavated by people, using bleeding edge technologies and a global infrastructure that facilitates all of it both in terms of logistics as well as the sharing of ideas. No-one has explained how such a system can be developed or maintained or expanded under a non-capitalist system. Kropotkin doesn't stray far from people fucking handing out coats on the street as an "example" of how resource distribution would work, never once explaining how the fabrics would be organized and transported, or how the sewing machines would be made, or how to reduce waste, or what incentive there would be to do it in an environmentally safe way, or who would make them and why, etc etc. I genuinely hate the fact that my workplace's CEO makes more in a year than I will make in 20 at my current wage, but the solution has never been demonstrated to be to eat the rich and bring out the fucking guillotines.
Or not? If companies were gonna move to tax havens they’d have left G7 countries long ago and moved to Hungary with its 9pct corporation tax. Less developed countries exist with even less of a tax barrier. Why havent they moved there yet? Bullshit.
yeah im sure businesses will be really cool with not selling to one of the biggest economies on earth
He mentioned that in the video. Just because he developed this mindset doesn't mean he didn't care about his workers. He very much did, taking 60-70 hour workweeks during the recession to make sure the company stayed afloat and took out massive loans just so he could pay his employees. That doesn't change the fact he still gained the mindset that he was better than his employees, it's just sometimes that also correlates to a viewpoint where you view you also have a responsibility to your employees to care for them. In fact that's usually what happens in small businesses because that's where employees most likely have a direct relationship with their employers. In larger businesses however, that doesn't happen, and thus it helps with the explanation of why larger businesses tend to treat their employees like shit. That's exactly the point. It's easier to exploit your workers when you think your better than them. It's why we need stronger workers right and regulated capitalism to make sure that doesn't happen. I'm not a socialist or anarchist and I don't believe either systems could ever work without eventually destabilizing themselves. That doesn't mean I'm going to throw out their viewpoints just because they believe in those forms of government like you seem to be doing. Then go read some socialist or anarchist literature ffs. To put it in basics, both systems work on the idea of owning, at least in part, all of the necessary means of production to produce those items you talk about by the workers, and cooperating with one another in order to get those produced. This is unlike a capitalist system where typically a capitalist owns all of the means of production other than labor, and transfers off their products to another capitalist in order to further produce more items (buying and selling in a nutshell). I personally don't believe these ideas would work, as humans are inherently too selfish to cooperate with one another amiably, but to defeat your enemy you must first understand them. Neither do I. I'm not an anti-capitalist, I'm a social democrat. Capitalism is one of the best resource distribution mechanisms humanity has ever created. To destroy it entirely in a pre-scarcity society would be monumentally stupid. It just needs to be regulated to make sure flaws like the one he demonstrates in his video is accounted for. I saw no point in those responses where I needed to include another paragraph, they all related back to the topic at hand. I'm not going to split my argument up when I don't need to.
Separate points or not, it's just easier to read a block of text like that. Yep agreed, still not an indication of anything wrong with the system as a whole. Kid, I don't care if you think I'm condescending or not but I have read the literature. Not sure how you missed the Kropotkin example. I stand by the fact that none of the literature I've read explains either in any significant detail or with any case studies how such a system would work. It's all well and good to throw around words like you think they compose an argument, but "Workers own the production and then they work together to make stuff" doesn't actually mean anything. And it's in no way relevant to my question about the CPU. At best it would work in a communal farming system (Estonia's got its own history of kolkhoz farming) but in no way is it an answer to the global scale infrastructure, legal system, product quality requirements and meeting workers' needs required. If humans are inherently too selfish (which is an unfounded statement, first of all. Humans are a social species and show an inherent understanding of fairness and equity like many other animals) then none of what I asked for can happen by definition under a socialist system.
70% revenue cut lol that isnt how taxes work d00d
I guess I'll try to break things up more then? The point, or my point anyways, isn't that it's necessarily something wrong with the system, more of an effect of the system that needs to be accounted for. It once again depends on the system you want to know about. I was just talking about it in a general way. For example, in what was supposed to be the original communist system that the USSR was going to use before the white terror and Stalin taking power fucked it all up, groups of people were going to be organized into "soviets" (that's where the Soviet in "United Soviet Socialist Republic" comes from) - councils of people who all work together in a factor or who own a farm, who would democratically decide the direction of whatever they collectively owned. To go back to your CPU example, there would be a soviet whose entire purpose would be to research CPUs. Then there'd be a soviet for each mine that mined materials for those CPUs. Next there would be a soviet to run the railroads that transported those minerals. Then there would be another soviet that would run the factories that built the transistors, and so on and so forth. Additionally these soviets would elect a representative to congregate together in their respective local industries to decide the direction those industries and the residents in the local would take, and then there'd be a third layer that represented the national government as a whole made up of people elected from those regional councils. I'm not saying whether the system would have worked or not, we don't know because the idea was suspended during the Russian civil war and replaced with Stalin's state capitalism model, but that's how it would have worked, and it could conceivably turn out CPUs. If you were instead to take the system of Anarcho-syndicalism, which is actually somewhat similar to the original soviet model the USSR was going to be working with (socialism and anarchism have a lot more overlap than people think), people would instead be organized into unions of workers that owns the means of production they're working with. Each of these localized unions would elect in whichever way they choose a representative to a greater union of the entire industry they work within. These greater unions would work together to decide the direction of the nation while the local unions would negotiate with one another to produce goods. Taking your CPUs back into example, there'd be local unions of workers in the mines, who would sell their goods to another union who would refine the ore, paying a train union to run transport the goods. The refinery union would then sell their goods to a transistor union, who would sell their transistors to a CPU union to make. All of these unions would be a part of their respective industries (Mining, Transportation, Transistor-making, CPU-building) who would all have a greater union that works with each other as well as a greater union of research and development to decide what the local unions should focus on. If you ask me it's a much more conceivable form than the idea of a soviet democracy, but still has its problems. Yes reading the basics of socialist and anarchist literature is important but you need to go further to understand how the actual systems work. The Communist Manifesto is more of a "fuck capitalism, we could really do things differently if we wanted to" than a complete example of how a socialist system would work.
Capitalism sucks and I hate people that are successful because they have things I don't have.
Yeah tax havens like Switzerland oh wait the U.S. government forced their banks into giving them your name and information to the IRS.
I can agree there is a few who are bitter because of that mentality. But most of the time people are frustrated with Capitalism due to the 1% having much more power and influence than the middle and lower classes. Like if i can get a decent enough income and live a normal life under capitalism, that'd be fine. Meanwhile we have billionaires who are shedding off the tax burden and slapping it onto the lower classes. Which makes it much, much harder for us to achieve a normal income.
Yeah, like in a lot of cases, food
The only way to generate income is by having people invest and generating value. The only way to achieve that is having a healthy competitive environment. Having this huge deal where companies and the government pair together to create this shitty state of being and calling it capitalism is going against any school of economy. "Freer markets lead to free people". But even that is better than life under Communism. I think more people should play Beholder 1/2 to get a good look into what communism was like.
I think we should think about socialism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.