You go Girl! Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Plans Bill to Boost Top Individual Tax Rate to 59%

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our energy comes from another planet millions of miles away and will never burn out. Our food grows magically from the ground. Our weather allows this process to take place, and the food chain itself is amazing, along with plants and animals to procreate. It's just amazing.

When these libs tell me this is all just a bunch of dumb luck, I can only laugh. Simply put, there has to be a greater being that controls these thousands of things.

All of that^^^^is called a "goldilocks planet."
A planet needs water to sustain life.
Earth is currently a "goldilocks planet."

And it just happens on it's own, correct?

 

[Andylusion]

Bloomberg ^ | November 15, 2019

No excerpt from Bloomberg allowed, story here. She wants a 59% top income tax rate and to tax unrealized capital gains yearly, including real estate and business holdings.

REMEMBER VOTE DEMONRAT SO YOU CAN GO BROKE AND HAVE TO GIVE YOUR HOUSE TO AN ILLEGAL INVADER, OR MUSLIM TERRORIST!

The thread author, who specializes on omitting information , won't tell you that the tax rate in question is for money made above the first $10 million.
Threads byThe Purge should be presumed to be BS even before reading them.

Well first off, Warren Buffets salary is only $100,000. So one of the richest people in the entire country, won't pay one penny more in tax because of that "over the first $10 Million" thing.

Second... you are looking at the short term. We're looking at the long term.

The long term impact is going to be that people will just put their money in tax shelters, or offshore it... and pay ZERO tax. Instead of paying 39% like they do now, they'll just not take the money in taxable income, and pay zero.

That means we, the lower and middle class, will have to pick up the tab.

Again... you guys point to Europe and the nordic countries.... ok, look at Europe and the Nordic countries, where the lower and middle class all pay double the taxes we do.

If your system worked, why are taxes so much higher on the lower and middle class in Europe and the Nordic countries?

Because it doesn't. Every time you jack up taxes on the rich, you end up nailing the lower and middle class. If your system actually worked, then you should have one example of it working SOMEWHERE..... but you don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bloomberg ^ | November 15, 2019

No excerpt from Bloomberg allowed, story here. She wants a 59% top income tax rate and to tax unrealized capital gains yearly, including real estate and business holdings.

REMEMBER VOTE DEMONRAT SO YOU CAN GO BROKE AND HAVE TO GIVE YOUR HOUSE TO AN ILLEGAL INVADER, OR MUSLIM TERRORIST!

That bitch knows what she is doing
Long overdue

Also tax Capital Gains at the same rate as personal income

Yeah, fuck those old people who worked 40 years and built a nest egg in stocks and assets so they wouldn't have to burden the taxpayers when they're no longer able to work. Steal as much of it as you can.

You're a real fucking asshole, you know that?

How stupid of them to think we would let them avoid being burden on society.... and just because we taxed the crap out of their earnings before they invested, doesn't mean we won't tax the crap out of their investments made from money they already paid taxes on! Come on!

In fact, let's just.... take everything. I want it, we have the votes for it... who cares about freedom and property... constitution whatever.

If we are going to live under the theory if one has too much, that's the reason others should take it, then why stop at money alone?

If you fancy old cars, and have four or five in your possession, would it not be fair for government to come along and take three of your cars away to give them to another who loves vintage cars? Or if you have a dozen beautiful bushes in front of your house. Would it not be fair for the government to take half of your bushes, and give them to a neighbor that has none? If you love entertainment and have four big screens in your home, wouldn't it be proper for government to take two of your big screens, and give them to somebody who doesn't have one?

Of course not. It would be ridiculous. So if it's ridiculous for government to confiscate physical items for equality, why is it okay for money?

 

[Winco]

People with the financial IQ's to create and maintain billion dollar nest eggs, they don't get there by hoarding their money away in a vault. The only time the money of a super wealthy individual lays dormant is if said individual doesn't see any opportunity to turn that money into more money. Want the rich to invest more? Stop disincentivizing investment.

Waltons, Heirs of WalMart Founder. All worth 50+ Billion.
Rob , Alice , Jim each over 70 years old and living in mansions.
These people pay most of their employees a minimum wages, and many have to work multiple jobs.
This is NOT ok.

Microsoft paid their employees.
Even the Janitors that started out with Microsoft are millionaires today.
This is what Capitalism is or should be.
Allen and Gates could have paid the Janitors minimum wages, but they didn't, and
they still were the richest men in the world.

 

[Bleipriester]

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Hitler would have been so proud of you.

If we took all the poor in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would they never be missed, it would benefit society greatly.

If we took all the rich in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country would collapse.

Next time you need a job, ask a homeless man for one.

Hitler was funded by the private companies. He maintained market economy. No idea where you have your nonsense from.
And without the rich the poor would not be poor. People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

My reference was to your Nazi comment we should remove Americans from the country and take their money like an authoritarian state.

The only people responsible for the poor are the poor themselves. Rich people don't make poor people. And if we took every dime away from rich people today, it won't help the poor one bit.

It reminds me of when I was a child in the 60's, and we were driving through a poor part of town. As I looked on, I told my father I wished I had a million dollars, because I would give it to those people so they didn't have to live that way. My father smiled at my comment and said "Son, you could give each and every one of these people a million dollars, and given enough time, they will be right back here again."

Not everybody is capable of managing money. Books have been written about lottery winners and how the money ruined their lives, and put them in massive debt. I've seen companies close down because the owner handed the business to his kid or kids, and they just spent the money and ran it to the ground.

Vast generalizing of the poor. They simply have no money to manage. In fact, you didn´t get robbed and killed during your journey through the poor quarter.
And for my "Nazi comment" you ignore the following. In the beginning there wasn´t rich and poor, there was aristocracy and populace. So rich and poor were pre-defined. Without modern day governments I would be nothing more than a fucking slave. I am not the slave type, I would kill my "employer" or die trying.

Yes, that is generalizing the poor, because it's the truth.

Poverty is the situation of having little or no money. The solution to poverty is money. So how does one get money? They work.

Is work alone the solution to poverty? Of course not, it's what you do with the money you earn that helps keep you out of poverty. If you have a newer automobiles, the latest iPhone, 300 cable or satellite television channels, the highest speed internet, these are all non-necessities. You choose to spend your money on these items. If you rent an apartment that requires three paychecks to live in, what you need to do is move to a lower rent location, or purchase your own home.

Then many of the poor have children they could never afford in the first place. Once you end up on some social program because of kids, you just bought a one-way ticket to poverty, because you are restricted in income to keep those social goodies coming in.

In the United States of America, poverty is not an infliction, poverty is a choice. So outside of those with physical or mental challenges, you can give me very few situations where a person is poor because of no choice.

See, these are the arguments of the upper class. Those poor have none of the items you mentioned because they are poor. Your argument is: You are poor, don´t make kids and eat shit, that´s what you can afford.
Is that correct? No, that´s bs. If the poor had higher wages, they would spend more money and thus help grow the economy and overall wealth. That´s the way to go.

 

[Winco]

And it just happens on it's own, correct?

Yes. Exactly.
You finally Understand.
There is no magical GOD that made all this happen, unless we are calling this God, SCIENCE and NATURE.
There is no "Ultimate Being" with human like attributes that "Made this all happen."

 

[satrebil]

A television is a device that creates lines of resolution to create a picture. You don't stand for lines of resolution.

Republicans are for freedom of religion, not necessarily a subscription to any certain one. President Trump stands for freedom of religion, but I don't think he's a religious person.

Post of the month

Republicans are for freedom of religion, not necessarily a subscription to any certain one. President Trump stands for freedom of religion, but I don't think he's a religious person.

What the fuck ray? And this comes out of the mouth of an unknown/uneducated truck driver?

Well this unknown uneducated truck driver doesn't subscribe to a religion, and many of my conservative friends and family don't either. Conservatism is not about religion, only the freedom of it as outlined by the Constitution. Do many conservatives belong to a religion? Who knows?

You believe in love. That's what the bible is all about

I was born Catholic, went to a Catholic school, even an altar boy. But as I grew up looking at my past, I found the religion to be somewhat hypocritical.

Now I basically believe in God; not because of the Bible so much, but of this great planet and the miracles that take place every second of every day to sustain life. Our energy comes from another planet millions of miles away and will never burn out. Our food grows magically from the ground. Our weather allows this process to take place, and the food chain itself is amazing, along with plants and animals to procreate. It's just amazing.

When these libs tell me this is all just a bunch of dumb luck, I can only laugh. Simply put, there has to be a greater being that controls these thousands of things.

Agreed, and I know we're veering off topic, but I do believe in the Bible in an objective sense. What I mean is this:

Imagine a young child came to you and asked how babies are made. Are you going to explain to him all the intricacies of sex, sperm meeting egg, the combination of chromosomes, etc? Of course not. 1 - it would be rather inappropriate but more importantly 2 - they wouldn't understand it. Their minds are too young and too undeveloped to do so.

Now scale that up. You're a superior being, more than likely from another plane of existence beyond our 3 dimensions, and you create a "universe" and populate it with life. Take the story of Adam and Eve for example. The Bible says Adam was formed from the dust of the earth. Well, is that not true? If you break us down to our basic components - carbon, hydrogen, calcium, etc - are we not the same as the dirt around us? And Eve - formed from one of Adam's ribs. Might that be... cloning? A little genetic manipulation?

So you've created this race and they are, for all intents and purposes, infantile. The science used to make them is so far beyond their understanding (and still is) you relay to them a story on how they were made in terms and methodology they can understand. As they grow and develop through the eons, they will gain better understanding - just as a child will eventually understand that babies aren't dropped off by storks.

When you look at the Bible from THAT perspective, it starts to make a lot more sense than stories about a "sky wizard".

 

[Bleipriester]

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Hitler would have been so proud of you.

If we took all the poor in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would they never be missed, it would benefit society greatly.

If we took all the rich in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country would collapse.

Next time you need a job, ask a homeless man for one.

Hitler was funded by the private companies. He maintained market economy. No idea where you have your nonsense from.
And without the rich the poor would not be poor. People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

Hold on. I'll argue with you about your opinion, but this history rewriting, no....

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

Ludwig Von Mises wrote all the way back in the 1950s..... the National Socialism, was in fact socialism. The Nazis were not capitalist free-market people.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
​

Yeah, it was more "capitalist" than the Russian version, where they just killed everyone and stole their stuff.

But leaving the "shop managers" in place, is about as close to free-market capitalism as it got. The state controlled everything. They controlled what you produced, what prices you charged, and what people got paid.... EVERYTHING. There's a famous (if questionable) statement by Hitler himself, where he said (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter to me if you own the cow.... as long as I own you".

Meaning, yeah on paper you own that manufacturing plant... but I'm telling you what you are going to manufacturer, and what price you'll charge, and who you'll employ, and so on.

And by the way, this is why German Socialism was superior to Russian Socialism. This is why the Russians were handing out rifles to every 5th soldier during the deployment. I told you in the other post, how terrible it is for the people with the knowledge and skills to leave the country.

The Russians killed all the people who knew out to make stuff work. That's why their entire economy imploded. While the German economy was clearly damaged by their socialistic controls, they didn't kill the people who knew how to make the businesses in the country run. They controlled them, yes, and that was harmful, but not nearly as bad as simply killing them all off like the Russians did.

But this mindless stupidity being puked out of universities today, that Hitler had a free-market capitalist economy.... I don't blame you for thinking that given the number of idiots in universities who have spouted this crap... but is crap. The people who were there, like Mises, who documented how the Nazis worked.... it wasn't free-market capitalism.... any more than me putting a gun to your head, and telling you to work.... is really voluntary exchange. BULL CRAP.

And without the rich the poor would not be poor.

Again... the rich left Cuba, and they left Venezuela, and they left N.Korea.

The people there..... are super freakin poor. More poor, than anyone here in the US. The poorest of the poor in the US, I don't see them eating grass like N.Korea. I don't see families, without mental illness, working a job.... and living in a refrigerator box, like they do in Cuba. There was a documentary that came out some years ago, where people were going to University to get a degree.... in order to be a waiter at a restaurant in Cuba.

No rich..... extremely extremely poor.

People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

If they didn't have crappy job, they would have no jobs.

Again, Cuba, Venezuela, N.Korea.... so on... Not having crappy jobs, doesn't mean that you'll magically have a good job.

That's a strange concept at face value. You are implying.... that if you eliminate crappy jobs, that people without skills, will either A: Magically get skills...... Or B: that jobs that require skills, will simply hire people without them..... because there are no crappy jobs, and so they hire people without skills.

This is a stupid ideology. If I run an auto repair bay..... I'm not hiring someone who can't fix a car, just because Walmart and McDonald's no longer exist.

If I need my water heater replaced, I'm not hiring someone who can't replace one.... just because there are no crappy jobs they can work.

The reason people get crappy jobs, is because they have crappy skills. It's not like all these people have degrees in nuclear physics, and are working at Wendy's because it..... well it exists.... and they are all just waiting for you to come along and ban crappy jobs, and then they'll all work NASA or SpaceX or something.

All these Ph.Ds all flipping burgers over, just waiting for the day you'll be elected and ban Wendy's, so they can go get their Quantum Physics job.

It's not happening dude. The reason people work at Wendy's is because they are not qualified to work elsewhere. You eliminating those jobs, doesn't make them qualified elsewhere. So you get rid of no-skill jobs, just means that no-skill people will be unemployed.

Yeah yeah, you capitalism guys insist on that because evil is qual to socialism. But National Socialism is not regular socialism and therefor not comparable. All the companies you know, Messerschmitt, Mercedes, Auto Union, ect were pricately owned. You are just forming your own reality like idiots. I am long enough here and I can say that because it is true.

 

[Bleipriester]

Then don´t scream "theft" while the hard working people pay up.

That's our point though. Every time you try and tax the rich, you end up taxing the poor. So *YOU* don't scream theft, when *YOU* end up paying the bill.

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated. But I think that the whole story is a hoax. You know US law? You have to pay up anyway, no matter where you got to. They´d have to give up on their citizenship. Also, not every rich is this unpatriotic.

But it is true. It's a statistical, historical fact.

View attachment 290063
The effective tax rate on the top 1%, isn't much different today, than it was in the 70s or 50s, when tax rates were double what they are today.

What that means is that the share of the tax burden has fallen more on the poor, than the rich, in the past.

View attachment 290064

The poorest 50% of tax payers (that would include the middle class, are paying less of the tax burden today, than they did in the 1970s with the 70% top marginal rate. Equally the top 1% are paying more of the tax burden today, than they did when the top marginal rate was 70%.

This isn't theory.... it is flat out statistical, undeniable, documented fact.

if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Again... that has been tried. They tried it in Venezuela. The rich packed up and left, and the government confiscated their wealth.

What you people don't seem to understand, is that it is the rich people themselves, that know how to make assets have value. That is in fact, exactly why they are wealthy.

Farms that produced enough food to feed the country, and export the surplus food.... were confiscated. The wealthy farm owners left the country. The farms stopped producing food, because shockingly peasants and poor people... don't know how to farm, and nether do the government bureaucrats.

Now they have mass starvation. What makes the assets have value is that someone knows how to make them produce value. You ditch the people who have the money and knowledge to make it work, and it doesn't work. A highly valuable farm, is now worthless.

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

You seem to be operating under the impression that wealth is static. Wealth is not static.

I worked at a Cadillac dealer. We had a poor guy that had been given a car. He wasn't super poor, but he didn't earn enough to own a Cadillac. In order to save money, he gave the car to a no-name mechanic shop, which pulled the motor apart (it needed a timing belt), and when they did that, they broke the engine block.

Expensive car, now a junk yard master piece. The value of the car changed. It wasn't worth, what it was before, when it was owned and could be maintained by a wealthy person.

This idea that you are just going to confiscate their stuff, and keep the wealth... that's not how the world works.

When Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil fields that Exxon was developing, it didn't make the government wealthy... it made the oil fields worthless. The government didn't have the equipment, nor the expertise to develop those oil fields... so they simply didn't get developed.

You know how much an oil field you can't pump oil from, is worth? Nothing.

And here's the thing.... did it hurt Exxon? In the short term, yes because they lost the money they put into those oil fields... .but in the long term it didn't hurt Exxon at all. They simply bought new equipment, and sent their skilled and knowledgeable people elsewhere in the world, and made money there, and developed oil fields there, and paid taxes in those countries, instead of Venezuela.

In the long term, Venezuela lost everything, and Exxon gained, just elsewhere.

Driving out these people, is going to be a net loss to everyone, except for the rich people.

Go back to Cuba even. The wealthy sugar plantations owners were driven out. The result wasn't that they got rich off the sugar fields. In fact, all the harvests declined after that, and Cuba became impoverished.

Meanwhile the wealthy plantation owners, simply left the country, and started businesses elsewhere, and most became wealthy again... just now they didn't benefit the poor Cubans left behind.

Your system, doesn't work. Never has in the past, and never will in the future.

That doesn´t speak in favor of the rich. It only proofs that they sponge up all the money.

If the rich stayed in Venezuela, and the government didn't socialize the food market, they would still be producing enough food to feed their people, and export to the rest of South American, just like they did before Hugo Chavez and Maduro screwed everything up.

Honestly, until you show me even one country that has lots of jobs and wealth... with zero rich people.... then yeah I think it does speak in favor of the rich.

Do tell.... how many impoverished beggars have you gotten a job from? List them all. I'd love to know.

Neither Chavez nor Maduro socialized the food market. Another idiocy by the capitalist guys. Majority of the food economy in Venezula is owened by the capitalists that now play opposition.
Example: Supermarkets

Government:
Abasto Bicentenario
Mercal (charitable)


Private:
Automercados Plaza's
Central Madeirense
Líder
Makro
Mikro
San Diego
De Candido
Unicasa
Excelsior Gama

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Post of the month

Republicans are for freedom of religion, not necessarily a subscription to any certain one. President Trump stands for freedom of religion, but I don't think he's a religious person.

What the fuck ray? And this comes out of the mouth of an unknown/uneducated truck driver?

Well this unknown uneducated truck driver doesn't subscribe to a religion, and many of my conservative friends and family don't either. Conservatism is not about religion, only the freedom of it as outlined by the Constitution. Do many conservatives belong to a religion? Who knows?

You believe in love. That's what the bible is all about

I was born Catholic, went to a Catholic school, even an altar boy. But as I grew up looking at my past, I found the religion to be somewhat hypocritical.

Now I basically believe in God; not because of the Bible so much, but of this great planet and the miracles that take place every second of every day to sustain life. Our energy comes from another planet millions of miles away and will never burn out. Our food grows magically from the ground. Our weather allows this process to take place, and the food chain itself is amazing, along with plants and animals to procreate. It's just amazing.

When these libs tell me this is all just a bunch of dumb luck, I can only laugh. Simply put, there has to be a greater being that controls these thousands of things.

Agreed, and I know we're veering off topic, but I do believe in the Bible in an objective sense. What I mean is this:

Imagine a young child came to you and asked how babies are made. Are you going to explain to him all the intricacies of sex, sperm meeting egg, the combination of chromosomes, etc? Of course not. 1 - it would be rather inappropriate but more importantly 2 - they wouldn't understand it. Their minds are too young and too undeveloped to do so.

Now scale that up. You're a superior being, more than likely from another plane of existence beyond our 3 dimensions, and you create a "universe" and populate it with life. Take the story of Adam and Eve for example. The Bible says Adam was formed from the dust of the earth. Well, is that not true? If you break us down to our basic components - carbon, hydrogen, calcium, etc - are we not the same as the dirt around us? And Eve - formed from one of Adam's ribs. Might that be... cloning? A little genetic manipulation?

So you've created this race and they are, for all intents and purposes, infantile. The science used to make them is so far beyond their understanding (and still is) you relay to them a story on how they were made in terms and methodology they can understand. As they grow and develop through the eons, they will gain better understanding - just as a child will eventually understand that babies aren't dropped off by storks.

When you look at the Bible from THAT perspective, it starts to make a lot more sense than stories about a "sky wizard".

My sister is real Bible thumper still, and I always think of questions she can't answer. She finally came to the conclusion the Bible is not a play by play book. The stories in it are kind of generalizations I guess. Perhaps very sensationalized.

She's Catholic, so I ask her about the story of Jesus, and she just gets aggravated because she can't explain it to me where it makes sense. She has the belief in heaven and hell. So I asked her, if she goes to heaven and our father ends up in hell, how could she possibly live eternity in happiness? Things like that.

She struggles for answers, but none that make any sense. The ending of our conversations is "You believe in the Bible blindly." Then I know she had enough religious talk.

 

[Godboy]

Democrats: Tax and spend

Republicans: Borrow and spend

We get the politicians we deserve.

Actually, the left taxes AND borrows, then spends.

 

[DBA]

Bloomberg ^ | November 15, 2019

No excerpt from Bloomberg allowed, story here. She wants a 59% top income tax rate and to tax unrealized capital gains yearly, including real estate and business holdings.

REMEMBER VOTE DEMONRAT SO YOU CAN GO BROKE AND HAVE TO GIVE YOUR HOUSE TO AN ILLEGAL INVADER, OR MUSLIM TERRORIST!

That bitch knows what she is doing
Long overdue

Also tax Capital Gains at the same rate as personal income

Yeah, that ought to do wonders for our economy.

God you guys are ignorant.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bloomberg ^ | November 15, 2019

No excerpt from Bloomberg allowed, story here. She wants a 59% top income tax rate and to tax unrealized capital gains yearly, including real estate and business holdings.

REMEMBER VOTE DEMONRAT SO YOU CAN GO BROKE AND HAVE TO GIVE YOUR HOUSE TO AN ILLEGAL INVADER, OR MUSLIM TERRORIST!

That bitch knows what she is doing
Long overdue

Also tax Capital Gains at the same rate as personal income

Yeah, that ought to do wonders for our economy.

God you guys are ignorant.

The Republican philosophy is if you let people keep more of their money, it ends up in circulation benefiting the economy. The Democrat philosophy is the way to get an economy going is to take money out of it, and give it to government.

 

[jillian]

LOL, 59% and you progs think that's a "winning" campaign strategy?
You are "special".

You know it doesn’t effect trumpscum, right?

 

[jillian]

Bloomberg ^ | November 15, 2019

No excerpt from Bloomberg allowed, story here. She wants a 59% top income tax rate and to tax unrealized capital gains yearly, including real estate and business holdings.

REMEMBER VOTE DEMONRAT SO YOU CAN GO BROKE AND HAVE TO GIVE YOUR HOUSE TO AN ILLEGAL INVADER, OR MUSLIM TERRORIST!

That bitch knows what she is doing
Long overdue

Also tax Capital Gains at the same rate as personal income

Yeah, that ought to do wonders for our economy.

God you guys are ignorant.

You mean like ignorant fake trade wars?

 

[DBA]

Bloomberg ^ | November 15, 2019

No excerpt from Bloomberg allowed, story here. She wants a 59% top income tax rate and to tax unrealized capital gains yearly, including real estate and business holdings.

REMEMBER VOTE DEMONRAT SO YOU CAN GO BROKE AND HAVE TO GIVE YOUR HOUSE TO AN ILLEGAL INVADER, OR MUSLIM TERRORIST!

How is this going to effect you?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I felt the need to respond.

This tax would actually affect me. I am in the top tax bracket and I do have investments. I also work and have an income other than my investments. I am not some ultra-wealthy person living off of capital gains. I don't make nearly enough off my investments to live anywhere.

The thing is, I wouldn't support this even if it didn't affect me. It will destroy our economy. We should encourage investment not discourage it. IMO, we sould be doing the opposite of this and indexing Capital gains to inflation. Yes, the wealthy would benefit as would anyone who has money in the market. Imagine buying a stock with a high dividend rate and being able to keep much of it. The economy would flourish which in turn helps those who decide not to or don't know how to buy stocks.

 

[DBA]

Bloomberg ^ | November 15, 2019

No excerpt from Bloomberg allowed, story here. She wants a 59% top income tax rate and to tax unrealized capital gains yearly, including real estate and business holdings.

REMEMBER VOTE DEMONRAT SO YOU CAN GO BROKE AND HAVE TO GIVE YOUR HOUSE TO AN ILLEGAL INVADER, OR MUSLIM TERRORIST!

That bitch knows what she is doing
Long overdue

Also tax Capital Gains at the same rate as personal income

Yeah, that ought to do wonders for our economy.

God you guys are ignorant.

You mean like ignorant fake trade wars?

Yeah that trade war is killing us. We will ultimately be better off with better trade balance. If a leftard gets elected, we will roll over and give China what they want. Glad someone finally put their foot down.

Again, ignorance.

 

[DBA]

LOL, 59% and you progs think that's a "winning" campaign strategy?
You are "special".

You know it doesn’t effect trumpscum, right?

You are so misled regarding the Trump demographic. MSM pushes this narrative, but the reality is that, ultra-billionaires aside, the lower-upper class votes Republican and for Trump. The lower-lower class votes Democrat at an astoundingly high rate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL, 59% and you progs think that's a "winning" campaign strategy?
You are "special".

You know it doesn’t effect trumpscum, right?

I thought you leftists always claimed that the Republicans are in bed with the rich. Now you claim that it's not so because we're talking about huge tax increase? Make up your mind.

 

[rightwinger]

You will never have enough assets to make a difference.

Repeat much, Or just need practice spelling?

I'm perplexed as to why you're so adamantly opposed to raising taxes on wealthy people.

Where do you think the wealthy people get the money to pay those taxes?

If you think they just dig deeper into their pockets, or do with one less yacht, then you've been listening to the commies way too long. Why do you suppose we have the most thriving economy in decades? How do you suppose we broke records in minority and female unemployment? Why are more and more getting off of food stamps and back to work?

The big guys never pay those taxes. They all get passed down to us little people, either by the price of their products or services increasing, a wage freeze or higher health insurance contributions from their workers, or hiring freezes.

"If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it."
Ronald Reagan

The taxes being proposed by AOC prevent them from doing just that

It hits billionaires in the pockets

How would it prevent them from doing that? What's government going to do, force industry into a price freeze for their products or services? Perhaps create law that they must provide wage increases even if they no longer have the resources to provide for those increases? Please walk me through the dynamics of that.

Well....let’s start by returning tax rates on the wealthy to where they were before we started this supply side lunacy

We also need to move away from just income tax. The super wealthy will take very little income. They are compensated through stock options and other dodges that grow wealth but don’t count as income

I’d like to see a minimal sales tax on all stock and real estate transactions. This way, when they move their money around, they are taxed on it

Also tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income taxes