Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

bluejon said:
See my previous response to this. I'm going to go with the views of the guys who are recognised on this, and for the record, were also predicting the 2008 crash before it happened (Krugman inparticular), so they have a track record of knowing their onions.
Click to expand...
Did these Nobel prize winners recommend a 70% tax rate?
 
bluejon said:
yes. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-policy-dance.html
Click to expand...
Back in the late 60's and early 70's Britain had a tax rate on higher earners of 83%, plus 15% on bank monies. The tax returns to the exchequer from the top earners amounted to 6%.
The present rates have seen that figure increase to 27%, so the 1% higher earners are now contributing almost a third of all income tax.
Do you think this 27% we now receive will increase if we upped the rate to 70%?
 
Ancient Citizen said:
All that is predicated on an assumption by yourself that taxation rates are too low.
Which is why it is just another demand for higher taxation, which is exactly what I have said about the content of Cortez's philosophy.
If you get tumescent about tax and spend economics, my congratulations, but the rates are Important, too high, like the 70% proposed by this idealist, and her worthy causes end up with a far less tax take than before to provide for them.
Click to expand...

She's not doing this right, and people know it ;)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oc...r-not-providing-workers-compensation-coverage
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Back in the late 60's and early 70's Britain had a tax rate on higher earners of 83%, plus 15% on bank monies. The tax returns to the exchequer from the top earners amounted to 6%.
The present rates have seen that figure increase to 27%, so the 1% higher earners are now contributing almost a third of all income tax.
Do you think this 27% we now receive will increase if we upped the rate to 70%?
Click to expand...
The highest earners are contributing almost a third of income tax because quite frankly they are paying themselves far too fucking much. We've already gone past the day in January where the average CEO has earned as much as the average worker would do in a year. As for your question, I'm not an expert in this, but I've read the opinions of experts and they think the answer to your question is 'yes'.
 
bluejon said:
The highest earners are contributing almost a third of income tax because quite frankly they are paying themselves far too fucking much. We've already gone past the day in January where the average CEO has earned as much as the average worker would do in a year. As for your question, I'm not an expert in this, but I've read the opinions of experts and they think the answer to your question is 'yes'.
Click to expand...
Lol.
So we now get to the nitty gritty. When the hard facts are presented, it boils down, inevitably, to the lefts envy politics. I couldn't give a toss how much they're 'Paying themselves' the fact is, the current tax rates show that the country receives vital income to fund the services we all need.
Check out the List of Nobel prize winners, for an eye opener, there are some proper fucking charmers in it.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Lol.
So we now get to the nitty gritty. When the hard facts are presented, it boils down, inevitably, to the lefts envy politics. I couldn't give a toss how much they're 'Paying themselves' the fact is, the current tax rates show that the country receives vital income to fund the services we all need.
Check out the List of Nobel prize winners, for an eye opener, there are some proper fucking charmers in it.
Click to expand...
No, that's is what you have incorrectly taken from my words. At least you're consistent though. You appear to know as much about economics as you do about brexit.
 
bluejon said:
No, that's is what you have incorrectly taken from my words. At least you're consistent though. You appear to know as much about economics as you do about brexit.
Click to expand...
So when the facts are presented, and they don't suit your agenda, like all the rest, you fall back on insults.
You've already said that you are not an expert, I think that's understating it.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
So when the facts are presented, and they don't suit your agenda, like all the rest, you fall back on insults.
You've already said that you are not an expert, I think that's understating it.
Click to expand...
And what facts have any of you presented? You've posted words, but with no reference to credible sources backing these claims up, whereas I have quoted authors, and even posted an article directly to a question asking if any of my nobel prize winners feel a 70% tax rate would be sensible. And as for my claiming not to be an expert, I'm not. I have never contributed to the economic literature, I have only read and absorbed what others have said. I'm guessing the same goes for yourself?
 
Last edited:
bluejon said:
What the hell are you talking about? The nobel prize isn't awarded by one guy, Dave Nobel, it's awarded by a consensus of the most acclaimed thinkers in a given subject. This will encompass views on all sides, and it was decided these two (krugman and stiglitz) are at the top of their game. Their work has the respect from across the board. So a group thinks they know their shit. If you're trying to say they don't know what they're on about, there is no point discussing this with you.
Click to expand...
Take a look at all Nobel Prize winners and tell me it's more legit than the Oscars.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Your first paragraph, although erudite in composition, simply appears to reaffirm what I think about this woman. Distribution of wealth back to the citizenry is laudable for sure, the problem is this kind of politics has been tried and implemented, without the benign outcome that was envisaged.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the backhander! You need to expand your mind a smidge. I’m not talking about simply taking money out of one pot and putting it in another, I’m talking about the redistribution of tax expenditures away from things like the military industrial complex and into things like infrastructure, education, healthcare. Not hand OUTs, hand UPs to a better life, and better quality of life.

When you state that investing citizens may get their 'Faces ripped off' it appears you are predicting an imminent crash, which reads like supposition.
Click to expand...
It is well known that Ma & Pa America are experts at buying high and selling low. I watch and read enough about finance and investing to understand that in a 20% down market, many Ma & Pa Americas have lost more than they ever thought they would when they watched Trump brag about the markets!

No, I wasn't referring to Trump supporters, just presenting an opinion on the typical left wing approach to solving society's ills, easy to flag up all the problems, always the same tired solutions, head straight towards the wealth generators as first port of call, no ideas on wealth creation, take first, distribute, repeat, then watch in dismay as the source inevitably dries up.
Click to expand...
I hope you are not inferring that I have a “typical left wing approach”? To most in Britain, I would be considered conservative, while over here, I’m called a socialist! I prefer to think of my approach on most such issues as thoughtful and considered, rather than left or right. I prefer solution-based discussion to the more ideology-based attempts often made here.

You seem to refer regularly to gender and ethnicity, a tactic that infers a perceived bias against these groups by people who don't share your viewpoint. As someone on here has said recently, nobody, other than those determined to parade their self righteous moral superiority, actually gives a shit what gender, colour or ethnicity she is.
Click to expand...
Maybe not on your street, but in the media HERE, and amongst conservatives HERE, it was almost the first thing out of their mouths. I believe they feel she might be being a bit “uppity,” if that rings a bell?!

I couldn’t care less if she was born a rich white girl in Manhattan, a poor Hispanic girl from the Bronx, or a black girl from Queens, I only care that she is a progressive voice in a sea of conservative white males who are running this country into the rocks. And, don’t forget, I also stated she would do well to STFU and study the job before hurtling headfirst into every Kleig-lit studio she can find. I’d much prefer a slow build and steady burn to the shooting star act she is performing so far. It is not just about her, per se, but the movement that created her, and then advanced her, and is now giving voice to her and the other tens of millions like her in America today.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Thanks for the backhander! You need to expand your mind a smidge. I’m not talking about simply taking money out of one pot and putting it in another, I’m talking about the redistribution of tax expenditures away from things like the military industrial complex and into things like infrastructure, education, healthcare. Not hand OUTs, hand UPs to a better life, and better quality of life.


It is well known that Ma & Pa America are experts at buying high and selling low. I watch and read enough about finance and investing to understand that in a 20% down market, many Ma & Pa Americas have lost more than they ever thought they would when they watched Trump brag about the markets!


I hope you are not inferring that I have a “typical left wing approach”? To most in Britain, I would be considered conservative, while over here, I’m called a socialist! I prefer to think of my approach on most such issues as thoughtful and considered, rather than left or right. I prefer solution-based discussion to the more ideology-based attempts often made here.


Maybe not on your street, but in the media HERE, and amongst conservatives HERE, it was almost the first thing out of their mouths. I believe they feel she might be being a bit “uppity,” if that rings a bell?!

I couldn’t care less if she was born a rich white girl in Manhattan, a poor Hispanic girl from the Bronx, or a black girl from Queens, I only care that she is a progressive voice in a sea of conservative white males who are running this country into the rocks. And, don’t forget, I also stated she would do well to STFU and study the job before hurtling headfirst into every Kleig-lit studio she can find. I’d much prefer a slow build and steady burn to the shooting star act she is performing so far. It is not just about her, per se, but the movement that created her, and then advanced her, and is now giving voice to her and the other tens of millions like her in America today.
Click to expand...
Sadly, it could get worse if you get what you want.
 
bluejon said:
And what facts have any of you presented? You've posted words, but with no reference to credible sources backing these claims up, whereas I have quoted authors, and even posted an article directly to a question asking if any of my nobel prize winners feel a 70% tax rate would be sensible. And as for my claiming not to be an expert, I'm not. I have never contributed to the economic literature, I have only read and absorbed what others have said. I'm guessing the same goes for yourself?
Click to expand...
My apologies for not including supporting evidence, I'm on a borrowed phone in Spain. When I get back I will furnish some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top