NBC Opinion Piece: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 70 percent tax on the rich isn't about revenue, it's about decreasing inequality. Progressive taxation should work as a corrective tax, like tobacco taxes or a carbon tax, fixing the problems created by exploitative capitalism.
CNN Majority Favor Medicare For All. But with a Catch.
The first link is another FB find. Here is my first comment.
Now I agree that there are some tax features (loop holes) that should be closed, but come on now.
On the upside, the DEMs may push moderates back to the GOP yet if they keep this talk up.
Thoughts?
CNN Majority Favor Medicare For All. But with a Catch.
The first link is another FB find. Here is my first comment.
"Oh this one will most definitely become a post. "Progressive taxation should work as a corrective tax, like tobacco taxes or a carbon tax. Sure, tobacco taxes raise some revenue for the states. But their primary purpose is to curb smoking." Let's tax them so they have less incentive to grow their wealth. (ie learn, invent, work, save, invest, take risks, etc) I feel like I have fallen into an Ayn Rand book... I wonder how many rich folks would find a more agreeable country to call home, or at least to retire to."
Now I agree that there are some tax features (loop holes) that should be closed, but come on now.
On the upside, the DEMs may push moderates back to the GOP yet if they keep this talk up.
Thoughts?
32 comments:
to me it is more about making life more affordable for low and middle class than decreasing inequality. We need affordable healthcare, debt-free college, affordable, quality childcare / early ed, etc. I think moderates support these things.
I am fine raising the tax rate on the the very wealthy.
I am just warning everyone to watch out for those unintended negative consequences.
Liberals seem to forget that the wealthy have a lot of options available to them.
I think it was Will Rogers who said, "I sometimes worry about making jokes about how the politicians run the country. The funnier I think it is, the more likely some fool politician will make it a law."
And as Robert Heinlein wrote, "TANSTAAFL"
The philosophical debate here is whether or not we think that our society can afford to stay on the current trend of exploding income inequality. CEOs today make 350x what the average worker makes, a gap that exploded by 10x over the last 40 years. If we want to correct this, taxes are going to have to be part of the solution.
Also, we should remember that rich people did just fine in periods of American history when the top marginal tax rate was much higher than it is today.
Sean,
I agree the Executive compensation is out of control at times.
I am not sure if tax policy and government arbitrary wealth redistribution is the best solution.
I do know that if the American consumer is not willing to pay more for American designed and manufactured products. Workers become a commodity and the dollars will continue to flow to the low cost countries where there are few regulations and low labor cost.
Not sure how to get folks to in essence support their own jobs with their expenditures.
There's nothing arbitrary about it.
Then try "voluntarily" not paying your taxes. It's all arbitrary and compulsory.
My FB friend just wrote that he would be disappointed if this is true.
DB Schultz Blames Cortez for his Decision to Run as an independent
I said he just got my vote... Those Far Lefters are SCARY...
It has been wisely said:
"You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
Of course it is arbitrary.
"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"
"(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority."
It in now way rewards the value created by a specific person...
It just says that everyone deserves something whether they work for the good of themselves and the country or sit on their butt.
Yeah, still not arbitrary.
So what system and rationale do you see in this policy?
Or is it just a whim of those who want more money?
arbitrary
"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"
"(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority."
Howard Schultz represents the disease of reflexive centrism -- the idea that just because something is in-between left and right, it's inherently better. You hear media figures crow about this all the time, saying things like "I hear it from both sides, so I must be doing it right." No, what it more likely means is that you're such a sloppy hack that everyone sees through your nonsense.
Schultz is mouthing empty platitudes. His notion that the platforms of AOC or Elizabeth Warren are "unrealistic" is fantasy. As Eric Levitz in the New Yorker points out, taking everything Schultz has said together is a patently absurd crazy quilt of centrist fantasy.
Schultz has promised to "reduce economic inequality, end extreme poverty, cut the deficit, combat structural racism, and ensure that every American has access to quality health care" while:
* Having lower corporate taxes than Obama-era levels
* Cutting Social Security and Medicare
* Giving middle-class taxpayers a tax cut
* Not being "punitive" with taxes on the rich
* Achieving the Trumpian-level fantasy of sustained 4%+ GDP growth
That's nonsense. As Levitz sums it up:
"In reality, Schultz’s problem with the Democratic Party isn’t that it refuses to tell Americans “the truth about what we can afford.” His problem is that Democrats are no longer telling bleeding-heart billionaires like himself the lies they wish to hear. Schultz wants a president who will assure him that there is no relationship between the wealth that he hoards and the poverty he can’t help but notice; or between his deficit fearmongering and his nation’s sky-high uninsured rate; or his opposition to a $15 minimum wage and widespread food insecurity; or his visceral disgust with the very concept of Carter-era top marginal tax rates and income inequality; or his ability to effortlessly finance a campaign for America’s highest office — despite boasting no governing experience or grassroots support — and the American public’s belief that their political system is broken."
Disagree or not with AOC or Warren's proposals, they clearly define a problem and a policy to address it. It's not a bunch of mushy nonsense.
Ok, let us set the "arbitrary" definition of rich as "anyone making more that $1 trillion per year." The new tax will gain ZERO. Or arbitrarily set it to $100, and nobody will be able to live, after taxes. How is this decision NOT arbitrary?
"So what system and rationale do you see in this policy?"
The goal is reduce income inequality.
"mushy nonsense" it may be, though the more common term is "magical thinking"-- the notion that politicians can override the laws of economics and of human nature. All of these proposals are just as insane as they sound, and even more than the insanity of the current debt-ridden system.
My boss can have a goal to reduce department expenses.
He can arbitrarily cut certain spending including my salary to do so.
Were last years tax cuts arbitrary or implemented with a firm rationale and system?
"Were last years tax cuts arbitrary or implemented with a firm rationale and system?"
There was certainly a rationale behind them.
The top 1% currently pay over 50% of all taxes, while earning less than 20% of all income. To make it fair, we should be REDUCING their taxes. Time to talk about the FAIR tax again.
Jerry,
The goal is to make the USA a great place to live for as many people as possible.
And to ensure our country stays dominant and powerful.
How would cutting taxes help our country?
Find ways to make more tax payers, not tax takers.
Pay people for industrial, tech and computer job training. Those jobs are far above minimum wage. I may even allow subsidies for a year until they are fully employed.
Get people off welfare and government dependance.
The problem is not taxation, the problem is spending. Government spending, for the most part, is inefficient and wasteful, while private spending is always efficient to its purpose, whatever that may be. The bigger bite taken by government and spent on things GOVERNMENT wants, the less is available for private citizens and enterprise to direct on things they directly want and need. Just that simple. If government "takes from the rich and gives to the poor," then the rich have far less ability and desire to give to the poor themselves, and the poor have little if any incentive to improve their own lot so long as the checks keep coming.
Anyone who's ever worked for literally more than about 90 minutes in a corporation realizes that the idea that "private spending is always efficient" is pure nonsense.
OK, "vastly more efficient." Is that better? Like the old falsity that "the government can spend your money more wisely than you can."
, the problem is spending.
It is indeed. And the associated problem is that reducing spending, unlike reducing taxation, has no constituency. No one ever hires a lobbyist to persuade the government to give themselves less money.
But let's face it, if we were really concerned about deficits, we wouldn't have given ourselves the largest tax cut in history.
--Hiram
There IS a very substantial constituency for tax cuts, just as there is for government spending. The assumption always is that I get more of either than that "OTHER guy." And tax cuts have a good reason other than creating deficits. They can spur economic growth, create a fairer and perhaps simpler system, and "starve the beast" of wasteful spending, though that has yet to happen. Simplest solution would be a balanced budget amendment with a total tax limitation, or my solution of paying Congress ONLY minimum wage plus a share of the budget surplus MINUS any tax increase.
There IS a very substantial constituency for tax cuts, just as there is for government spending.
Tax cuts certainly, but not for cuts in government spending.
Obviously I am not a big balanced budget guy because that simply add to current tendency of turning the Supreme Court into a super legislature.
--Hiram
Finally found the statistic I was looking for. If you simply confiscated the income of anyone making over $1 million, you would just about cover this year's federal deficit spending. And be guaranteed of getting ZERO the year following. Stupid is as stupid proposes.
Any source or math to go with this?
Found the source but didn't post it. IRS, I believe, says that millionaires declared some $750 billion in income. Fairly close to recent annual deficits. And the top 1% still pay like 30% of the taxes (numbers probably wrong but indicative). In other words, higher taxes sink all boats.
Source 1
Source 2
Post a Comment