Page 43 of 46 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 451

Thread: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

  1. #421
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    80,003

    Re: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    I never "complained" that libertarians were not honest. I never mentioned it at all. My view on libertarianism is that a belief that the economy works better and that people's needs are satisfied better when there is a weak government is an archaic belief that has been completely discredited by history. When government is weak, we breed monopolies; corporations exploit workers and the needs of people are not satisfied -- except for the needs of those who have the monopoly power.

    Government regulations and laws didn't pop-up from nowhere. Officials didn't wake up one day and decide, 'I'm going to regulate XXX industry.' Regulations came about due to market failures -- tainted food was sold to consumers; harmful drugs made it to market without proper testing -- to name two examples. Libertarianism presumes that we'd be better without regulations and taxes, which is nonsense.
    Any idea what the role of the state and local government is and with term limits why this isn't a better area to focus your attention and for actual positive results vs. a bureaucrat in D.C.? With term limits you have an opportunity to change the state and local governments and get one that will do what you want but instead you prefer delegating responsibility to the federal bureaucrats over whom you have very little control

  2. #422
    Sage



    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,357

    Re: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Do you think our Founders wanted a 4+ trillion dollar federal govt. and approximately 50% of income earners not paying any Federal Income taxes to fund it? You have a very selective memory of what the Founders created and very poor lack of understanding as to the taxes being paid and their purpose. Rather than raise taxes on those evil rich people why not get something from those who aren't paying any FIT? Or how about putting limits on what state taxes can be deducted from the federal tax returns which put the onus on the high tax states to be held accountable for what they spend, mostly blue states?
    It's a feeble attempt to enlist the founding fathers to make your point. The truth is that the disputatious founders, who were revolutionaries, not choir boys, seldom agreed about anything. Never has the country produced a more brilliantly argumentative, individualistic or opinionated group of politicians. Far from being a soft-spoken epoch of genteel sages, the founding period was noisy and clamorous, rife with vitriolic polemics and partisan backbiting. Instead of bequeathing to posterity a set of universally shared opinions, engraved in marble, the founders shaped a series of fiercely fought debates that reverberate down to the present day.

    Did the founding fathers, who didn't envision electricity, flush toilets or aircraft want a $4 trillion dollar federal budget? Who cares? Their constitution does not prohibit it and that's all that matters.

    What the constitution does provide is amendments -- such as the amendment to allow a tax on income and in doing so opened up funding the government with a progressive tax system. If we look at life as a lottery, not knowing whether you have a winning ticket beforehand, you’ve introduced a strong presumption in favor of redistribution. If you should happen to end up as a member of the top 1%, an extra dollar at the margin won’t mean a lot to you; but if you should happen to end up as a member of, say, the bottom quintile, an extra dollar could make a lot of difference. So you should, other things equal, favor a system of progressive taxation and generous aid to the poor and unlucky.

    As I and others have pointed out in this thread, a 70% marginal tax-rate has existed for many decades in this country, usually in periods of large economic growth, investment and employment. It's therefore impossible to make the case that there are negative economic consequences to high marginal tax-rates, that tax high income as it rises. You then fall back to whether it is fair. The basic assumption is that the government needs money to operate. Who should that money come from? We can tax everyone equally but that is naturally unfair. Diminishing marginal utility is the common-sense notion that an extra dollar is worth a lot less in satisfaction to people with very high incomes than to those with low incomes. Give a family with an annual income of $20,000 an extra $1,000 and it will make a big difference to their lives. Give a guy who makes $1 million an extra thousand and he’ll barely notice it.

    What this implies for economic policy is that we shouldn’t care what a policy does to the incomes of the very rich. A policy that makes the rich a bit poorer will affect only a handful of people, and will barely affect their life satisfaction, since they will still be able to buy whatever they want.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

  3. #423
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    80,003

    Re: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    It's a feeble attempt to enlist the founding fathers to make your point. The truth is that the disputatious founders, who were revolutionaries, not choir boys, seldom agreed about anything. Never has the country produced a more brilliantly argumentative, individualistic or opinionated group of politicians. Far from being a soft-spoken epoch of genteel sages, the founding period was noisy and clamorous, rife with vitriolic polemics and partisan backbiting. Instead of bequeathing to posterity a set of universally shared opinions, engraved in marble, the founders shaped a series of fiercely fought debates that reverberate down to the present day.

    Did the founding fathers, who didn't envision electricity, flush toilets or aircraft want a $4 trillion dollar federal budget? Who cares? Their constitution does not prohibit it and that's all that matters.

    What the constitution does provide is amendments -- such as the amendment to allow a tax on income and in doing so opened up funding the government with a progressive tax system. If we look at life as a lottery, not knowing whether you have a winning ticket beforehand, you’ve introduced a strong presumption in favor of redistribution. If you should happen to end up as a member of the top 1%, an extra dollar at the margin won’t mean a lot to you; but if you should happen to end up as a member of, say, the bottom quintile, an extra dollar could make a lot of difference. So you should, other things equal, favor a system of progressive taxation and generous aid to the poor and unlucky.

    As I and others have pointed out in this thread, a 70% marginal tax-rate has existed for many decades in this country, usually in periods of large economic growth, investment and employment. It's therefore impossible to make the case that there are negative economic consequences to high marginal tax-rates, that tax high income as it rises. You then fall back to whether it is fair. The basic assumption is that the government needs money to operate. Who should that money come from? We can tax everyone equally but that is naturally unfair. Diminishing marginal utility is the common-sense notion that an extra dollar is worth a lot less in satisfaction to people with very high incomes than to those with low incomes. Give a family with an annual income of $20,000 an extra $1,000 and it will make a big difference to their lives. Give a guy who makes $1 million an extra thousand and he’ll barely notice it.

    What this implies for economic policy is that we shouldn’t care what a policy does to the incomes of the very rich. A policy that makes the rich a bit poorer will affect only a handful of people, and will barely affect their life satisfaction, since they will still be able to buy whatever they want.
    Yet you pick and choose the times to elicit the Founding Fathers who created the Constitution that you now want to tout as the source for raising taxes on the rich. Your claims of what someone else can afford to pay in taxes is nothing more than a personal opinion and jealousy over what they have. This issue remains why do we have approximately 50% of INCOME EARNING AMERICANS paying zero in Federal Income Taxes? Why shouldn't they pay something whether it be $100, $1000 per year or some other amount?

    Why is it that state and local taxes being deducted from federal returns not an issue with you? Why is it always about Federal Income taxes or corporate income taxes with you never total revenue?

    As has been pointed out here the amount the federal govt. is going to get out of those rich is a drop in the bucket and a basic rounding error in a 4+ trillion dollar govt. but apparently it makes you feel good and is red meat for a radical. It is pointless until you and others address the approximately 50% of income earners not paying anything in federal income taxes along with your lack of understanding as to what those income taxes should and actually do fund

  4. #424
    Educator Obscurity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    649

    Re: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yet you pick and choose the times to elicit the Founding Fathers who created the Constitution that you now want to tout as the source for raising taxes on the rich. Your claims of what someone else can afford to pay in taxes is nothing more than a personal opinion and jealousy over what they have. This issue remains why do we have approximately 50% of INCOME EARNING AMERICANS paying zero in Federal Income Taxes? Why shouldn't they pay something whether it be $100, $1000 per year or some other amount?

    Why is it that state and local taxes being deducted from federal returns not an issue with you? Why is it always about Federal Income taxes or corporate income taxes with you never total revenue?

    As has been pointed out here the amount the federal govt. is going to get out of those rich is a drop in the bucket and a basic rounding error in a 4+ trillion dollar govt. but apparently it makes you feel good and is red meat for a radical. It is pointless until you and others address the approximately 50% of income earners not paying anything in federal income taxes along with your lack of understanding as to what those income taxes should and actually do fund
    Can you prove the desire to tax the rich is based strictly off of jealousy? Do you have data to back up this claim or are you constructing an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy?
    Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

  5. #425
    Guru

    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    01-15-19 @ 10:52 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,939

    Re: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yet you pick and choose the times to elicit the Founding Fathers who created the Constitution that you now want to tout as the source for raising taxes on the rich. Your claims of what someone else can afford to pay in taxes is nothing more than a personal opinion and jealousy over what they have. This issue remains why do we have approximately 50% of INCOME EARNING AMERICANS paying zero in Federal Income Taxes? Why shouldn't they pay something whether it be $100, $1000 per year or some other amount?

    Why is it that state and local taxes being deducted from federal returns not an issue with you? Why is it always about Federal Income taxes or corporate income taxes with you never total revenue?

    As has been pointed out here the amount the federal govt. is going to get out of those rich is a drop in the bucket and a basic rounding error in a 4+ trillion dollar govt. but apparently it makes you feel good and is red meat for a radical. It is pointless until you and others address the approximately 50% of income earners not paying anything in federal income taxes along with your lack of understanding as to what those income taxes should and actually do fund
    I think that's something that those who push for high tax rates for the "rich" don't realize. There just isn't enough money at that end of the spectrum. To get the additional tax revenue they believe the federal government should spend, they will be required to tax more households, which is another way of saying they need to raise taxes on the middle class.

    You could tax incomes above 1 million at 100% and you wouldn't get the required revenue for single payer, and you may only get that revenue once since tax avoidance would kick in.

  6. #426
    Sage



    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,357

    Re: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Any idea what the role of the state and local government is and with term limits why this isn't a better area to focus your attention and for actual positive results vs. a bureaucrat in D.C.? With term limits you have an opportunity to change the state and local governments and get one that will do what you want but instead you prefer delegating responsibility to the federal bureaucrats over whom you have very little control
    Ah, so the state and local governments should have the responsibility, not the federal government, according to you. The reason the federal government intervened is history. The state and local governments failed at that responsibility, as we know from Upton Sinclair, who wrote in "The Jungle," of the appalling sanitary and working conditions in the meat-packing industry that state and local governments failed to remedy. That's why we have federal standards and federal anti-trust laws. States are just not up to the task, as history shows.

    It's also a matter of practicality. Why have 50 states administering 50 Social Security programs, 50 Medicare programs and the such. Moreover, poor states just can't afford these programs on their own.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

  7. #427
    Educator Obscurity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    649

    Re: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    Ah, so the state and local governments should have the responsibility, not the federal government, according to you. The reason the federal government intervened is history. The state and local governments failed at that responsibility, as we know from Upton Sinclair, who wrote in "The Jungle," of the appalling sanitary and working conditions in the meat-packing industry that state and local governments failed to remedy. That's why we have federal standards and federal anti-trust laws. States are just not up to the task, as history shows.

    It's also a matter of practicality. Why have 50 states administering 50 Social Security programs, 50 Medicare programs and the such. Moreover, poor states just can't afford these programs on their own.
    Conservative is setting up a fallacy. Let him, and every other conservative, who insists the reason liberals/moderates who want higher taxes on rich folks, insist "It has to be because you're jealous."

    Cling to it, and shatter the fallacy of their entire argument.
    Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

  8. #428
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    80,003

    Re: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    Ah, so the state and local governments should have the responsibility, not the federal government, according to you. The reason the federal government intervened is history. The state and local governments failed at that responsibility, as we know from Upton Sinclair, who wrote in "The Jungle," of the appalling sanitary and working conditions in the meat-packing industry that state and local governments failed to remedy. That's why we have federal standards and federal anti-trust laws. States are just not up to the task, as history shows.

    It's also a matter of practicality. Why have 50 states administering 50 Social Security programs, 50 Medicare programs and the such. Moreover, poor states just can't afford these programs on their own.
    Nice diversion from reality, I am not talking SS and Medicare as those are forced contributions to the Federal Govt. The truth is you still want to delegate your personal responsibility issues to a federal bureaucrat even though that federal bureaucrat contributed to the current 21 trillion dollar debt, never solved a social problem, doesn't have term limits all because it makes you feel good to say, "see I care because I am sending money to D.C."

    Address the issue raised why the focus on the evil rich and not the approximately 50% of income earnings not paying anything in Federal Income Taxes? Seems you want to blame your inability to get your agenda through a state legislature that has term limits and want to delegate to the federal govt. that doesn't. That speaks volumes about you and your ideology

  9. #429
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    80,003

    Re: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    Ah, so the state and local governments should have the responsibility, not the federal government, according to you. The reason the federal government intervened is history. The state and local governments failed at that responsibility, as we know from Upton Sinclair, who wrote in "The Jungle," of the appalling sanitary and working conditions in the meat-packing industry that state and local governments failed to remedy. That's why we have federal standards and federal anti-trust laws. States are just not up to the task, as history shows.

    It's also a matter of practicality. Why have 50 states administering 50 Social Security programs, 50 Medicare programs and the such. Moreover, poor states just can't afford these programs on their own.
    By the way you can tout the higher tax rates in the past until hell freezes over yet never address what the effective tax rate is during that same period of time. It is what people actually pay that matters not what the rate is. Further those evil rich people in the top 1% currently pay 40% of the federal income taxes whereas approximately 50% of the income earning Americans people Zero. In the liberal world is that fair and why isn't that an issue for you.

    The reality is there never will be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite nor enough money from the rich to even come close to making a difference

  10. #430
    Educator Obscurity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    649

    Re: Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

    A note to some of our more partisan members; using terms like "It must be because you're jealous of rich folks" is not an argument. It's a logical fallacy. It's called an argument from ignorance fallacy.

    It could be a whole slew of reasons why someone would want to tax the rich, jealousy being only one of a myriad of potential outcomes.

    Claiming the jealousy line is nonsense.
    Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Page 43 of 46 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •