> ideas of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Everyone is still talking about her, yet says she's not talented and charismatic. She's brand new in Congress, yet owns the conversation.

> taxing "the wealthy" at a rate of 70 percent of
> their earnings

She is proposing this marginal rate on people earning more than $10 million dollars. Why are you worrying about them? They have lobbyists being paid hundreds of dollars per hour to prevent this from happening. Even if it happens, very few if any will actually pay this.

It always surprises me how people fight so hard against the very wealthy paying more tax, yet the very wealthy are totally fine with letting ordinary people pay more tax.

> 70 percent

That's just her opening bid, Trump style. Start with a crazy opening offer, negotiate to a lower and more reasonable number.

A good answer -

“There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” AOC says in response to criticism that she’s made factual errors.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-the-rookie-congresswoman-challenging-the-democratic-establishment-60-minutes-interview-full-transcript-2019-01-06/

Ann Coulter expressed the view of a large number of Trump supporters:

When the Koch Brothers, the Wilkies, Steyer, Bloomberg, Zuckerberg with FWD.us, etc, have made a point of sticking it to the middle class as well as bringing in slaves to bid against wages at the bottom, let's have a wealth tax on them.

Paul Ryan was the symbol of the desire of Americans to go to the wall to protect the very top of the economic ladder. We get it; they hate their fellow countrymen, and they would rather "Lean In" over an army of slaves who they can deny a raise with the threat of withdrawal of sponsorship. Paul Ryan left with the lowest approval of any speaker. There's a reason 12% of the country liked him, and that number should remind us of the amount of the vote Ron Paul could get in a GOP primary.

Snoopy, the inheritance tax was originally intended to only hit the top 0.01% who 'weren't paying their fair share'. A few years of inflation and it hits quite a few more. If they didn't keep upping the limit due to taxpayer complaints it would hit even more. Similar deal with the alternative minimum tax rate. That 0.01% swiftly becomes 20% and 30% as inflation kicks in.

The reality is there aren't enough 'rich' people to pay for everything. And since they are rich they have the resources to move or restructure to avoid taxes. So even if you officially tax them you won't get the money. Instead it will be the middle class that pays.

“There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” AOC says

That is true. But when you are so flagrantly wrong and about things that everyone should know you reveal a lack of education that is unacceptable even from a politician.

Ben beat me to it, but yeah: When the Left mentions the "wealthy" in a tax discussion, what they actually mean is "middle class". As Loco points out, in today's America, the politically well connected simply don't pay taxes. So it doesn't matter what the top tax rate is. Raising it isn't going to increase revenue -- and when that happens, the Left will start demanding that the middle class "sacrifice". Remember Hillary's words about this: "We're going to take things away from you for the common good."

That the rich owe society for their wealth is not a new idea. And not exclusive to a certain former barista from Connecticut, er...the Bronx. We've even had a president who said that if you built a successful business in a country with roads, telephony, utilities, etc., that "you didn't build that."

Her proposal was to raise marginal tax rates to fund a "Green New Deal." This proposal rests on an underlying assumption that climate change is, in fact, anthropogenic and that human actions can effect the desired change in the climate, a matter subject to an ongoing debate.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that her "Green New Deal" is what we should be arguing; and not let shifting the argument over to how to fund this government boondoggle make it ipso facto a done deal.

Now if only the people criticizing her would criticize her for having unworkable political and economic ideas, not for the silly stuff they're harping on like how she does silly dances or was nicknamed "Sandy".

I'm half convinced the silly dance stuff is a 'controversy' she is putting out there and trying to blame on her opponents to distract from all that important stuff Dan T.

It is different, they say, because they are "nice people" with "good intentions". But remember that Mao and Lenin had the most noble of intentions.

Another disturbing similarity is the degree of hatred for disfavored groups like white men and "the rich".

The rich in America cannot just sit on their wealth (if they do it dissipates). Instead, having wealth enables them to expand their business. The only way to expand a business is to have profits and if there are profits the owners make money. Without expanding business there are no jobs for a growing population and no increasing salaries. Socialists seem to imagine that wealth is a thing, like a pizza, with the wealthy hogging too much of the slices. They never ask who made the pizza.

The stuff about "the rich" oweing their share is absurd. The top 1% already pay 50% of taxes. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay nothing (and get more than they pay). The only way to get rich (besides theft) is to provide something people need or want. I don't envy Bill Gates or Apple--they have made so many things of value. People line up for the latest iPhone. Just try and take Amazon or Google Maps away from people.
The alternative min tax has almost bitten me every year for decades and I am far from rich.
The idea that "the rich" are like old European aristocracy is simply false. Almost all US super rich did not start out that way (ie not inherited). The top 1% people are often only in the top 1% for a couple of years (their last few years of salary, sold a business, cashed in options). 50% of people will be in the top 10% in their lifetime.

Snoopy: >70 percent

That's just her opening bid, Trump style. Start with a crazy opening offer, negotiate to a lower and more reasonable number.

That's just her foot in the door. The goal is socialism, not just a 70% tax on Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffett, Koch, etc. It's collective ownership (i.e. government control) of Microsoft, Facebook, Berkshire Hathaway, Koch Industries, etc.

@cc
If you look at the one progressive tax in the country, the tax rate looks progressive. If you include all the regressive taxes (sales, gas, phone, property, etc), the tax rate looks pretty flat.

People earning $70,000 and $1.7 million both pay about 30% of their "income" in taxes. If we include the ways that the rich can shield their income, I imagine the rich are paying less. If we take the top 0.1, the rate is lower because of the low capital gains tax.

The tax rates by income quintile are 19, 23, 27, 30 and 32.

https://www.ctj.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2015/

I was going to echo the first part of Curtis. The income tax is somewhat progressive. But other taxes are regressive. So you end up with a flat tax for the most part.

But sometimes people pay a lot more than that due to one off events. So there is a tax lottery system somewhat in effect. You have people popping into and out of that top 1% largely for one off events. And even if they have the exact same event later (sold another business) they now know how to avoid those high taxes and don't end up in that top 1% of payers a second time.

Curtis, rich people aren't avoiding taxes like you think they are. For one thing the capital gains tax goes up if you make too much. For another you have to pay the AMT if you make too much non-ordinary income. The main way high wealth people avoid paying taxes on investment income is by investing in the government. Non-taxable government bonds don't pay a lot but you also don't have to pay taxes on the income from them.

Now if only the people criticizing her would criticize her for having unworkable political and economic ideas, not for the silly stuff they're harping on like how she does silly dances or was nicknamed "Sandy".

Who's this "they", kemosabe? let me turn it over to Col. Schlichter:

Could you believe that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was caught on videotape dancing like a sinning sinner of sinfulness? Like all conservatives, I hate dancing so much, so very much, as part of our anti-joy agenda. Luckily, so many prominent, influential conservatives took to Twitter to call out her wicked wickedness, including such conservative thought-leaders as @QTruthGuy1776 and @ILoveMAGAAndAmNotABot.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/01/07/conservatives-hate-dancing-strong-women-so-much-n2538566

Summary, a couple of oddball twitter accounts made fun of those things, and the MFM picked it up and cried crocadile tears. And muddied the water as they circled the wagons. Almost as if it was a made up story.

Dare I call it fake news?

How's this for criticism? an economics major, from an Ivy League school doesn't know the definition of unemployment.

During the interview, Ocasio-Cortez said, "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/

How's this for criticism? an economics major, from an Ivy League school doesn't know the definition of unemployment. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at January 7, 2019 11:34 AM

Um, Darth, she's not an economics major. She received a Bachelor's degree in International Relations with a minor in Economics.

And she was graduated from Boston University, which is not an Ivy League school.

"Curtis, rich people aren't avoiding taxes like you think they are. "

I'm not convinced. As we learned at the beginning of Obama's first term, when one Cabinet nominee after another was exposed as a tax evader, people with political connections can simply not pay taxes and get away with it. Who's going to prosecute them? The prosecutors are all their country club buddies. The "rich" who get slammed by top-bracket tax rates are mostly upper-middle-class business owners, and business and technical consultants. People who foolishly put their effort into building businesses and excelling in their fields, rather than cultivating political connections.

>> I'm half convinced the silly dance stuff is a 'controversy' she is putting out there.

I agree. She's realized that she can keep herself in the news by picking fights and playing the victim.

That's actually a pretty good strategy considering her position. She's not going to have a role in determining tax proposals or anything else of consequence. It's questionable whether she'll even get a committee seat due to her lack of knowledge a/o experience.

So her best bet is to draw attention to herself and claim that she's setting the agenda. The media is lapping it up and effectively making her much more influential than she would be on her own merits.

Ben: I'm half convinced the silly dance stuff is a 'controversy' she is putting out there and trying to blame on her opponents

I think you're right. I've seen all kinds of liberal criticism against conservative criticism of her dancing, but I can't find any conservative criticism of her dancing.

Quote is from Stephen Radelet, not Pinker...

https://www.economist.com/buttonwoods-notebook/2018/04/25/the-best-books-on-finance-and-economics

"As we learned at the beginning of Obama's first term, when one Cabinet nominee after another was exposed as a tax evader, people with political connections can simply not pay taxes and get away with it."

I won't argue about people with political connections not paying their taxes. Especially Democrats. But that is only a small section of the rich Cousin Dave.

I will add looking at people who pay a lot of taxes and thinking those are the people who earned a lot of money doesn't work. Your tax rate isn't that strongly related to how much money you made. How you made it is far more important. Especially on the upper end. If you are looking for people who legally don't pay their 'fair share' in taxes you are looking for small business owners. There are a lot of deductions they can use to legally reduce their tax burden. Mixing personal with business is a large part of that.

I dunno.

The first thousand a person makes ends up paying for food, and maybe shelter.

The thousand and first thousand a person makes sits in an offshore account, or helps buy another yacht.

Call me simple, but I don't think those two thousands should be taxed the same way.

"It always surprises me how people fight so hard against the very wealthy paying more tax, yet the very wealthy are totally fine with letting ordinary people pay more tax."

Heh. This is just the first in a spate of comments this way and that way about "the rich" -- but nobody ever seems to notice something about all the bitching:

No measure ever proposed or attempted to stick it to "the rich" has EVER made it easier for others to gain wealth.

Even killing them.

Because the lack is not in the wealthy, but in those who envy, instead of study, wealth.

Why do you hate people who build yachts Rail?

Also, is there a maximum amount of money someone should be able to make? An income limit if you will?

If 70% of the money you worked for was being taxed away, would you keep working?

It is interesting that these socialists in the US talk about rainbows and helping people, but are all about banning and confiscating things in reality. Rich? Take 70% (or more) in taxes. Guns? Confiscate them. Straws? confiscate them. Large sodas? ban them. it goes on.

but all for a good cause.

A lot of people who call themselves middle class fall into the "rich" category according to the envious. Make $170,000? You are in the top 2% and your marginal tax rate is 45% (including all taxes) (my rough guess). That is already a disincentive.

Talking just about the US if you look at Curtis's link you will see things pretty much peak at 33% total taxes. That is roughly 20% federal and 10% local (state/city/county). If you look at that over time you will find those numbers don't really change. For federal taxes this is called Hauser's law. A simple recognition that the federal government takes 15-20% of GDP as tax revenue irrespective of what the actual tax rate is.

Before LBJ the peak tax rate was 90%. From LBJ to Reagan it was 70%. Reagan and forward it has been under 50%. For all that time tax revenues were still 15-20% of GDP. The peak tax rate didn't matter. Essentially no one paid that. Or at least they weren't dumb enough to pay it more than once. A large part of Reganomics was reducing the tax rate while also reducing the deductions that went with it. This lead to a significant economic boom as people stopped spending so much money avoiding taxes and instead spent it on productive business.

So while the effective tax rate isn't really related to the statutory tax rate you do see a correlation between high statutory taxes and economic growth. As taxes rise you see a related drop in GDP growth. But there is little change in the effective tax rate. Until you drop below that magic 33% total (20 fed and 10 local) you aren't going to see any loss in tax revenue. (what happens when you get below 33%, damned if I know. I don't think we've ever been there.)

Now that was just for the US. Things are different in Europe. The VAT has proved to be an amazingly potent tax for pulling tax revenue out of a nation. Once implemented it is easy to break that 33% wall and get 40% or 50% or higher out of your nation. But paired with that is a related drop in economic growth. Which is why Europe and many other nations are essentially dependent on the US for all their economic growth. Due to their high taxes they have effectively 0% internal GDP growth. Everything is dependent on external trade growth.

The VAT has proved to be an amazingly potent tax for pulling tax revenue out of a nation. ~ Ben at January 8, 2019 3:17 PM

The VAT is a stealth tax.

Studies have shown that the public gets upset with a sales tax higher than 8.5% With a VAT, the overall sales tax paid climbs to over 25% by the final leg of the production and distribution process.

The purchasing public, however, only sees the last leg of the VAT, the tax on the final product. What the public doesn't see with a VAT are the taxes on each step of the process, taxes that progressively increase the overall cost of the final product.

In countries with a VAT, a great deal of economic energy is expended in avoiding the VAT. Which leads, as you've pointed out, to wasted economic energy and stunted GDP growth.

"The VAT is a stealth tax."

Yep.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2017&locations=US-DE-FR&name_desc=false&start=1961&view=chart

If you look at the charts you can see that the US, Germany, and France all share approximately the same GDP growth rate. The key thing is all of the rises and falls are caused by US domestic policy. During the Reagan years things were higher, the Obama years lower, but that is all US stuff. What happens in France or Germany doesn't matter for their local economy. And it certainly doesn't matter for the US. Riots in France due to the extra high gas taxes, oddly enough doesn't have an impact on the French economy. And it certainly doesn't on the US. But change housing loan regulations in the US causing the 2008 collapse and you see the exact same collapse in France and Germany. Due to their high taxes their real domestic growth rate is between -1% - 0%. Everything else is trade with the US.

This is true of almost every trade partner the US has. And a good reason to not fear Chinese dominance. Just like Germany the Chinese economy is wholly dependent on the US economy for growth. They literally can't get bigger than the US without changing how they do things at a fundamental level. In general I don't think this is a good thing. When the US stumbles (and we certainly do) it would be nice if other nations were out there who could help us back up. But I don't have a solution for that. How do you convince people to cut back on their government and leave people alone?

"In countries with a VAT, a great deal of economic energy is expended in avoiding the VAT. Which leads, as you've pointed out, to wasted economic energy and stunted GDP growth."

In general, taxes pervert economic incentives. And when taxes reach the point where the most effective incentive strategy is to avoid the tax, even when the investment is a money-loser otherwise, economic decline often follows. Got an empty strip mall in your town? Almost every town does today, and the problem started well before the Internet began muscling in on retail. Tax laws encourage owners of marginal-performing commercial real estate to leave the property empty. The tax writeoff has a far higher rate of return than slim rental profit margins in a competitive environment. Empty malls often contribute to blight in the surrounding neighborhoods. But the property owner doesn't care because they are investing their money more effectively by avoiding taxes.

We have a strip mall where I live that the owner has emptied out; tenants that were bringing in business had their leases non-renewed and were forced to move. The property owner has publicly stated that they expect the city to provide subsidies and/or tax breaks for redeveloping the property, and until then, they will let it sit.