Proving That Democrats Are Actively Trying To Lose The Next Election

[AbsolutSurgen]

Ocasio-Cortez Suggests 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

 

If you're trying to scare independent moderates away from voting Democrat, the best way is to scare people with talk of huge tax hikes and that Democratic Socialism is part of the party dogma.

[skillzdadirecta]

10 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

Ocasio-Cortez Suggests 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

 

If you're trying to scare independent moderates away from voting Democrat, the best way is to scare people with talk of huge tax hikes and that Democratic Socialism is part of the party dogma.

 

You know she's not talking about a 70% Tax on regular folks right?

 

Quote

To clarify, Ocasio-Cortez’s suggested plan is to tax Americans making more than $10 million a year at a rate as high as 70 percent in order to finance the GND. That deal would embrace renewable energy and cut back on greenhouse gasses, among other initiatives. 

 

Steve Scalise tried to misrepresent what she was saying as well and THIS is how she responded 

 

 

 

So considering that the knock against Dems these past couple of election cycles is that they haven't been Progressive ENOUGH, I think she's and the Dems are gonna be fine and that they aren't "actively trying to lose the election." Maybe they'll lose the votes of folks who base their votes on just reading headlines...

 

[Greatoneshere]

This is a good thing, I wouldn't say she is actively trying to lose the election at all. We need to energize the Democratic party and exhibit strength.

[Keyser_Soze]

Dang people with money to burn can help the country?

[mclumber1]

The problem with most tax increases that the left has advocated for don't just hit the 1%, they hit the upper middle class as well.  If AOC's plan only affects those who make more than $10 million a year, she and the Democrats need to be upfront with that.  But if this ends up affecting those that make more than $100k a year, it will be very unpopular. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

With income inequality as outrageous as it is you can either start taxing the wealthy more (or raise minimum wages, or set income caps, or some combination of those), or you can start baking cakes and prepping the guillotines. I prefer the non violent solutions.

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

You know she's not talking about a 70% Tax on regular folks right?

 

 

Steve Scalise tried to misrepresent what she was saying as well and THIS is how she responded 

 

 

 

So considering that the knock against Dems these past couple of election cycles is that they haven't been Progressive ENOUGH, I think she's and the Dems are gonna be fine and that they aren't "actively trying to lose the election." Maybe they'll lose the votes of folks who base their votes on just reading headlines...

 

I know she is talking about marginal tax rates of over $10M in income.  She is providing sound bites that will be used in the next election.

 

Most voters are not educated -- and only hear the headlines. 

 

4 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

This is a good thing, I wouldn't say she is actively trying to lose the election at all. We need to energize the Democratic party and exhibit strength.

If energizing the base means a move into Democratic Socialism, there is no chance to win the next election.  Neither the Rebublican, nor the Democratic base  is big enough to win the election.  Appealing to moderate independants is needed.

 

5 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Dang people with money to burn can help the country?

Raising tax rates to ridiculous levels has a drag on growth, that actually tends to lower overall government revenue.

 

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

The problem with most tax increases that the left has advocated for don't just hit the 1%, they hit the upper middle class as well.  If AOC's plan only affects those who make more than $10 million a year, she and the Democrats need to be upfront with that.  But if this ends up affecting those that make more than $100k a year, it will be very unpopular. 

You're absolutely right.  

[GeneticBlueprint]

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

The problem with most tax increases that the left has advocated for don't just hit the 1%, they hit the upper middle class as well.  If AOC's plan only affects those who make more than $10 million a year, she and the Democrats need to be upfront with that.  But if this ends up affecting those that make more than $100k a year, it will be very unpopular. 

 

Which ones are you referring to? I haven't kept up to speed on every single proposal out there but the ones with the most talk around then always had the top marginal rate affecting "the 1%". 

[mclumber1]

The current top rate for a single person goes into affect at 500k.  That's definitely rich, no doubt, but this 70% rate should not simply take over for that bracket, but be a new bracket for the ultra wealthy if the Democrats want this supported.  Might as well offset that increase with with a decrease on the lowest tax bracket.  That would be popular.

[GeneticBlueprint]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

The current top rate for a single person goes into affect at 500k.  That's definitely rich, no doubt, but this 70% rate should not simply take over for that bracket, but be a new bracket for the ultra wealthy if the Democrats want this supported.  Might as well offset that increase with with a decrease on the lowest tax bracket.  That would be popular.

 

Her idea seems to be what you're  saying though. She didn't give specifics but did say an idea would be for something like a 70% rate to start at $10 million. Not $500k. I don't know if that counts as ultra wealthy per se but yeah.

[mclumber1]

My rule of thumb: if you can buy a new Mercedes as a Christmas gift for your significant other (complete with a cheesy giant red bow on top) WITHOUT financing it, you are wealthy.

[SilentWorld]

I don’t care if you live in NYC or Silicon Valley, a $500k income gives you resources that the average person could only dream of and is therefore reasonable to call it rich.

 

Like, even the most swanky Manhattan condominiums still have janitors that are definitely not making even $100k, but I’m supppsed to believe that $500k is just doing ok because it’s just so expensive to live in some places? Get real.

[Massdriver]

Taxing the top .1% is easy, but it won’t bring in enough revenue to do all the things she supports. 

 

Quote

But that leaves about $244 billion in taxable income for those earning more than $10 million a year. If this entire pool was taxed at 70 percent instead of the 39.6 percent they paid in 2016, the federal government would bring in an additional $72 billion annually — or close to $720 billion over 10 years, according to Mazur. The real number is probably smaller than that, because wealthy Americans would probably find ways around paying this much-higher tax.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/business/2019/01/05/ocasio-cortez-wants-higher-taxes-very-rich-americans-heres-how-much-money-could-that-raise/

 

She has to hit incomes a lot lower than that to afford a single payer system. 

[mclumber1]

Just now, SilentWorld said:

I don’t care if you live in NYC or Silicon Valley, a $500k income gives you resources that the average person could only dream of and is therefore reasonable to call it rich.

 

Like, even the most swanky Manhattan condominiums still have janitors that are definitely not making even $100k, but I’m supppsed to believe that $500k is just doing ok because it’s just so expensive to live in some places? Get real.

 

I didn't say they aren't wealthy - I'm just saying that proposing tax increases on the current top bracket is not politically feasible.  Even our current rates has the Janitor who makes $100k a year is paying a marginal rate of 24%.  

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Massdriver said:

The tough thing is taxing the .1% is easy, but it won’t bring in enough revenue to do all the things she supports. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/business/2019/01/05/ocasio-cortez-wants-higher-taxes-very-rich-americans-heres-how-much-money-could-that-raise/

 

She has to hit incomes a lot lower than that to afford a single payer system. 

 

The left is going to fuck up their pitch for single payer.  I guarantee they will not promote the fact that everyone's current out of pocket expenses and private insurance costs will reduce to zero.  

[Massdriver]

If she wants to do something effective against climate change, support a carbon tax and distribute the revenue back to the people. Have it step up every year until we hit our goals. 

 

Let the market decide what the best fuel and power source is instead of Congress. It will be very efficient at it. 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Massdriver said:

If she wants to do something effective against climate change, support a carbon tax and distribute the revenue back to the people. Have it step up every year until we hit our goals. 

 

Yeah.  Plus the carbon tax is an actual plan (unlike the GND) that has bipartisan support, and has the ability to pass both houses.

[Massdriver]

2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Yeah.  Plus the carbon tax is an actual plan (unlike the GND) that has bipartisan support, and has the ability to pass both houses.

It is an actual plan, but I doubt it could pass both the house and senate. 

[Ricofoley]

The only time I've heard a Republican express support for a carbon tax recently was Cornyn on Twitter, and it was him bringing it up in response to AOC talking about a Green New Deal. Overton window, etc. etc.

[GeneticBlueprint]

A carbon tax with incentives for reduction for putting those CO2 vacuums on top of your buildings.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

The problem with most tax increases that the left has advocated for don't just hit the 1%, they hit the upper middle class as well.  If AOC's plan only affects those who make more than $10 million a year, she and the Democrats need to be upfront with that.  But if this ends up affecting those that make more than $100k a year, it will be very unpopular. 

 

She LITERALLY says that in the interview AND in the subsequent Tweet battle she had with Steve Scalise (Who bowed out after the Tweet thrashing he got)

[SilentWorld]

If it only affects those that make more than $10 million a year, it’ll be doing basically nothing to curb income inequality.

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

She LITERALLY says that in the interview AND in the subsequent Tweet battle she had with Steve Scalise (Who bowed out after the Tweet thrashing he got)

 

Yeah.  I. Know.  

 

My point was that this tax increase plan will morph into tax increases on the existing upper brackets.  And then it won't garner enough support.

[skillzdadirecta]

30 minutes ago, SilentWorld said:

I don’t care if you live in NYC or Silicon Valley, a $500k income gives you resources that the average person could only dream of and is therefore reasonable to call it rich.

 

Like, even the most swanky Manhattan condominiums still have janitors that are definitely not making even $100k, but I’m supppsed to believe that $500k is just doing ok because it’s just so expensive to live in some places? Get real.

 

Not to be contrarian, but I have a friend who only has a high school education, lives in Florida in a not very expensive city and drives a forklift  for a living at a factory. With overtime, he routinely makes over  100K a year. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

She's going easy.

 

I'm in favor of a 100% marginal tax rate on income over $5 million.

 

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

She's going easy.

 

I'm in favor of a 100% marginal tax rate on income over $5 million.

 

 

COMMIE-SOCIALIST!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Everyone in this country should probably be paying more in taxes. The wealthy (families making 250k+) vastly more

[GeneticBlueprint]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Everyone in this country should probably be paying more in taxes. The wealthy (families making 250k+) vastly more

I'd happily pay the $500 I put towards health insurance and my HSA account every month to a M4A program.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

12 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

I'd happily pay the $500 I put towards health insurance and my HSA account every month to a M4A program.

Agreed. Even more if a vast reduction in carbon pollution is on the table

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Also lol at the premise of this thread. Americans support  raising taxes on the wealthy by a hilarious margin, across the board. The problem is you have one political party completely beholden to the financial interests of the rich , and they other is on the fence

[johnny]

I think if those “upper middle class” families ended up with single payer health care the taxes wouldn’t really be a burden on them. They lose a lot of money on healthcare as is assuming they have children. 

[mclumber1]

4 minutes ago, johnny said:

I think if those “upper middle class” families ended up with single payer health care the taxes wouldn’t really be a burden on them. They lose a lot of money on healthcare as is assuming they have children. 

 

I suppose I'm upper middle class.  Between the premiums I pay and what my company chips in for insurance, it's over $20,000 a year for my family.  That doesn't include out of pocket expenses, copays, co-insurance, and non-covered items. 

[SaysWho?]

I don't think people really get how climate change and the environmental policies work and why they're important.

 

First, we have to remember that taxing super rich people who have historically paid more than 70% isn't extreme policy; it's something with historical precedent in the 20th century before we decided to tax rich people less and remove ways for poorer people to negotiate. 

 

Then, we have to realize that, as Florida has proved, removing environmental regulations to be "pro-business" ironically fucks business over. Blue-green algae in the St. Lucie estuary was helped by runoff and pollution, which allowed the algae to fester off the nutrients from the phosphorous runoff. Some of that blue-green algae affected some beaches, which affects tourism. A sewage spill in Sarasota recently takes money to clean, and the nutrients help foster the growth of red tide, which hurt tourism on both coasts and the Florida Panhandle last year.

 

Then, as warming waters help create strong storms, that hurts lives, business, and tourism and costs billions to clean and rebuild.

 

These idiotic plans to save money now 'cuz business' only lead to us paying more to clean up this shit in the future.

 

But that future is now our present. No, independents want their water and environment clean and they want to use the beaches, and they support taxing the rich.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Also lol at the premise of this thread. Americans support  raising taxes on the wealthy by a hilarious margin, across the board. The problem is you have one political party completely beholden to the financial interests of the rich , and they other is on the fence

Paul Krugman feels the same way

 

[PaladinSolo]