AOC wants 70% tax on wealthy

Mr. Deez said:
So they get out with tons of debt and sometimes not much more marketable skills than when they entered.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most sobering and enlightened comments I've read here. I think we all think or know this to be true; but just to see it in print really makes it hit home.
 
? Husker
"Putting a governor in place to slow down the growing economic disparity growth is what I'd support. "
Wage controls? Explain please

and
"Trump simply convinced his base that immigrants, foreign trade deals and Coastal liberals are the root of all evils, "
Utter BS on immigrant remark. And you know it
Foreign trade deals, evil? SH Which of the deals Trump has changed or is working on do You think were equitable to America?

The Coastal Liberals as evil? Well I think the new abortion laws in coastal states speak to that.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I'm not advocating for "making billionaires poorer" or taking their money away and giving it away. Putting a governor in place to slow down the growing economic disparity growth is what I'd support. Some of the left might advocate taking existing money away whereas as I believe you should only put changes in place looking forward (e.g. increase marginal tax rates).
Click to expand...

I don't think AOC is advocating a wealth tax (at least not yet). I think she's advocating a new 70 percent income tax bracket at $10M per year. My concern is what this looks like in practice. You raise about $70B per year (at best) with this tax. It is not enough money to meaningfully help the lower classes. It's not enough to fund their healthcare, their educational opportunities, or much of anything else that's meaningful. However, it is enough to diminish private investment, which means less economic growth and lower job growth. I'm not seeing much of an upside.

Seattle Husker said:
I'm a strong supporter of trade schools and an educational system closer to the European system of "tracks" for children of lesser academic prowess.
Click to expand...

Most on the Right agree with this, but the identity politics people hate it. Why? Because who is going to get diverted toward trade school? It's going to be lower academic achievers, and that is almost sure to be disproportionately minorities (except Asians). They're going to ask why a bunch of blacks and Hispanics are pushed toward becoming auto mechanics, heating and AC repairmen, plumbers, etc. rather than doctors, lawyers, and CPAs. It's going to be viewed as racist and criticized as such.

Seattle Husker said:
The health care system is definitely distorted but not sure I'd lay it at the feet of government rules except those written by lobbyists that further entrench Insurers, medical service and equipment providers and the Pharmaceutical industry.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of such lobby-driven rules, but government money is the bigger distorter than the rules. But by far the biggest distortion is caused by the nature of financing healthcare through insurance. Whenever you have a third-party payer with unlimited resources, things get expensive. I don't know how you break that cycle. Frankly, we are probably headed toward a government system within the next twenty years for better or for worse. It's just a matter of whether it'll be financed through a payroll tax or by deficit spending (and therefore financial ruin).

Seattle Husker said:
In turn, its not just AOC and Sanders that are playing on the underclass but demagogues like Trump too. The style is the same but the policies are different. Trump simply convinced his base that immigrants, foreign trade deals and Coastal liberals are the root of all evils, not their relative education level in a knowledge worker economy.
Click to expand...

Certainly Trump played on it. In fact, politicians have been playing on the underclasses so long as the underclass has been allowed to vote. The difference is that at least for now and until it's convenient, Trump isn't trying to explode the entitlement state and reorganize the economy. (I still think that if Democrats take control of Congress and pass a single payer bill while he's president, he will sign it.)

Seattle Husker said:
Social Security may have started as a 'Democrat' idea but it's bi-partisan now. It's a sacred cow that nobody will touch as long as the Baby boomers are a significant voting bloc.
Click to expand...

Presently, yes; historically no. In the Trump era, the GOP has basically capitulated to a non-reformed Social Security system, as they've become dependent on older voters. However, they have attempted meaningful reforms at various times in the last 30 years. They were demonized by Democrats for throwing old people in the street, etc., and the media basically cheered them on. Nobody gave a crap about the math. They lost elections trying, and they have given up. It's a shame.

It is not necessarily a Baby Boomer problem though. When I started following politics 28 years ago, it was the WWII generation that fought reform. Most Baby Boomers saw the problems with it but weren't motivated enough by it to vote accordingly. I thought that when the WWII generation (and their nostalgia for FDR) died off, things might change. They didn't. By the time Baby Boomers started to care about the program, they were dependent on it or saw their dependency coming.

The voters who should be caring about it are younger voters. That was true in the '90s and even more true now. They're the ones who are really getting ripped off, but they don't understand it and don't care about it. Furthermore, nobody is communicating the problem to them or explaining it to them. So while they're amped up by pot legalization, college tuition, and pet social justice issues, they're literally having six or even seven figures just yanked out of their pockets and either don't know or don't care about it. It's sad. The bottom line is that it'll be a mess until there's an implosion that could be easily avoided if dealt with if we were a little bit sensible and could do math at a 3rd grade level.
 
bystander said:
This is one of the most sobering and enlightened comments I've read here. I think we all think or know this to be true; but just to see it in print really makes it hit home.
Click to expand...

It is terribly sad. I don't expect a 18-year-old kid (certainly not from the current generation) to understand that it doesn't make financial sense to borrow $100K to study lesbian dance theory. However, I do expect parents and counselors to explain it to them. Far too many give the "follow your dreams" advice, when they need to be giving them numbers and statistics to explain the real consequences of their decisions. This isn't fairy tale, feel-good ********. These are real life decisions that have major, long-term consequences.
 
But by far the biggest distortion is caused by the nature of financing healthcare through insurance. Whenever you have a third-party payer with unlimited resources, things get expensive. I don't know how you break that cycle.
Click to expand...

Deez, but who created that huge distortion? The government through wage controls. So the thing that Husker is proposing actually created the worst part of our healthcare system.

So now the answer is more government rules? It's the definition of stupidity and insanity.
 
Monahorns said:
Deez, but who created that huge distortion? The government through wage controls. So the thing that Husker is proposing actually created the worst part of our healthcare system.

So now the answer is more government rules? It's the definition of stupidity and insanity.
Click to expand...

I know what the answer is, but it's not politically viable. Not gonna happen.
 
iatrogenic said:
Why is that a problem?
Click to expand...

I think he believe there is a theoretical gap that would cause a dangerous level of civil unrest. They won't just accept being poor.

My late father participated in a forum long ago. They played some sort of game where each participant was assigned a certain demographic (white, black, hispanic etc). Then they were given chips or something representing their power. The exact rules are hazy to me but my father realized nobody was talking to him because he didn't have enough chips to matter. So guess what he did? He flipped the entire board over spilling all the chips on the floor. They were all taken aback and a little pissed until he explained that's what happens when you marginalize a group of people to that extent.
 
He didn't say that people were "poor". He said the "income inequality" is a problem.

Bill Gates makes quite a bit more than me, but it's not a problem.
 
bystander said:
I think he believe there is a theoretical gap that would cause a dangerous level of civil unrest. They won't just accept being poor.
Click to expand...

Correct. Historically, this has been the downfall of many governments. If we don't address this, some charismatic leader will come along and capitalize on the disparity for a less than positive outcome.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It is terribly sad. I don't expect a 18-year-old kid (certainly not from the current generation) to understand that it doesn't make financial sense to borrow $100K to study lesbian dance theory.
Click to expand...
There are a few 40+ members on this board who pay out at least that much yearly to watch lesbians dance at The Yellow Rose or Rick's Cabaret, however. Not much theory, however. More of a Practicum. You know, like trade school.
 
Maybe that charismatic leader will solve the problem with something like the following:

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938-Minimum Wage. How did that work out?
First, it became useless after 10 years due to inflation. Inexperienced workers were already making more than minimum. The unemployment rate among blacks was 10% in 1948 for 16 & 17 year olds, and as the minimum wage was increased, the unemployment rate for that group was 27% in 1958 and 45% in 1975.

Maybe a charismatic leader will, around 1960, invoke the theory that slavery and oppression left a legacy of broken black families, and society should rectify that problem. What happened? The proportion of black children being raised by single mothers in 1960 was 22%. Thirty-five years later that number rose to 52%.

"Poverty is going to bring down the Republic". Really? In 2001 most people living below the poverty line in America had central air and a microwave oven. Those two items were more common among the "poor" in 2001 than they were among the American population in 1980. In 2001 most "poverty-level" households had cable TV and two or more televisions. In 2003, 75% of the "poor" owned one vehicle and 14% owned two or more.

In 2015 Americans living below the poverty line had more housing space per person than the average European (not the poor Europeans).

The poverty line in the U.S. is the upper middle-class in Mexico.

The problems of the "poor" in America are not a lack of material goods. They are a result of social degeneration (cultural). Having non-judgmental Democrats egging on welfare doesn't help.
 
Last edited:
Iatrogenic
Funny people who say income inequality is a big problem don't seem to want to face reality.
More people are making more money than ever. And even those who are impoverished live a pretty comfortable life as you outlined.

PLUS we need to remember all the entitlements they receive which if added to their "income" would put them far above the 'Poverty line"

Husker
who gets to decide how much you make before you are eligible for income distribution to you?
Or if you want a "governor" on wages who gets to decide what you are worth to a company??
 
towersniper said:
There are a few 40+ members on this board who pay out at least that much yearly to watch lesbians dance at The Yellow Rose or Rick's Cabaret, however. Not much theory, however. More of a Practicum. You know, like trade school.
Click to expand...
A friend told me those establishments are not what they once were.
iatrogenic said:
On another note, polls show Hillary has a 90% chance of beating Trump in the 2016 Presidential race![/QUOTE
Would be nice to hear all of his comment rather than stopped mid sentence.

DumbestHorm might be into something though. Everyone is for robbing Peter to pay Paul. Except for Paul.
Click to expand...
 
Monahorns said:
That is a cop out. Things don't change if no one is brave enough to voice the solution.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Somebody should be advocating for the free market and competition, and it's a cop out not to. I'm just pointing out the obvious political challenge of doing so. People aren't going to go for it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It is terribly sad. I don't expect a 18-year-old kid (certainly not from the current generation) to understand that it doesn't make financial sense to borrow $100K to study lesbian dance theory. However, I do expect parents and counselors to explain it to them. Far too many give the "follow your dreams" advice, when they need to be giving them numbers and statistics to explain the real consequences of their decisions. This isn't fairy tale, feel-good ********. These are real life decisions that have major, long-term consequences.
Click to expand...
"lesbian dance theory" you say...

I think I accidentally clicked on a movie about that on my U-Verse Guide and got a $12.99 charge for it on the next bill.
 
Q: Which wild-eyed radical U.S. President was known for implementing wage and price controls?
A: (see below)























Richard Nixon.
 
Chop said:
Q: Which wild-eyed radical U.S. President was known for implementing wage and price controls?
A: (see below)























Richard Nixon.
Click to expand...

So? Is that your justification for further mistakes? It's like saying the Republicans favored raising the debt ceiling when it was 40% of where it is today. You have to look at the context of the decision. What is the limit of our national debt? $100 Trillion? To point out past mistakes is an extremely useless and weak argument.
 
bystander said:
So? Is that your justification for further mistakes? It's like saying the Republicans favored raising the debt ceiling when it was 40% of where it is today. You have to look at the context of the decision. What is the limit of our national debt? $100 Trillion? To point out past mistakes is an extremely useless and weak argument.
Click to expand...

And of course, keep in mind that the price controls were ineffective.
 
Green New Deal: Unserious Fantasy, Dangerous Worldview | National Review

I'm starting to think that the GND is basically the result of a generation of people raised on The Simpsons with insufficient understanding or curiosity to understand that what they were watching doesn't actually happen - that nuclear power isn't a bunch of leaky glowing oil drums, and that evil corporations aren't actually allowed to just dump sewage and trash in the water with impunity, forcing the taxpayers to pay for all of it.

An actual quote from the Very Serious People who wrote this:

“We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years,” the backers explain in an outline, “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top