gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I find her hugely attractive. Love ballsy, clever women.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
- Thread starter urban genie
- Start date
basokla
Well-Known Member
Good grief. Her Green New Deal should end it.
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 32,673
Good grief. Her Green New Deal should end it.
End what?
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Good grief. Her Green New Deal should end it.
What do you ACTUALLY know about it??
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,711
I know what she's saying, and just to clarify, I am most certainly not anywhere near even a tiny fraction of these amountsshe is saying that tax remains unchanged on your first $10m. 70% applies to the $10m and 1st dollar so 70c is taken as tax on one dollar and so on. Why are you so scared on taxation do you earn more than $10m per anum? Why wouldn't they pay? They people like them have before and do so elsewhere in the world
that would make me fall under this proposed taxation. You say why wouldn't they pay, but someone who has earned, by their own efforts,
$10 million will be liable for taxation that will take a considerable chunk of that, I don't know what the current US rates are,
but presuming they're similar to ours, after allowances etc; they'd pay around $4.5 million in tax, then would pay around $7 million
on a further earned £10 million. I know the amounts left are astronomical sums which any individual can live in luxury on,
but that's not the point, you are asking for someone to hand over to government more than he's allowed to keep, on money he's
earned, which is not a fair system, just because the individual is wealthy should not mean his tax percentages result in him
receiving less than he pays out.
What always happens is that this kind of person finds ways of avoiding this, it happened here years ago, but if the maximum rate
hovers around 50% or slightly less,then people will indeed pay it, it's been proved, increase this and the tax take always drops,
in some cases resulting in the government receiving 70% of nothing.
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 20,316
The correct rate of tax is the optimal rate of tax that accrues the most revenue. If it’s 70% above $10m then fine. If it’s 45% above $10m then also fine. What Republicans have done by shoveling more cash and tax breaks down the throats of the donors that own them is dumb because it’s pissing most people off and making them receptive to AOC’s message. AOC is smart because she can articulate and frame her message in a way that most people can understand and relate to. The people who will relate strongly to the message will also be people who voted for Trump.
The debate is not about 70% tax rates but about people who can afford it paying a fair share. Ignore the figure. It’s the message that counts.
The debate is not about 70% tax rates but about people who can afford it paying a fair share. Ignore the figure. It’s the message that counts.
better dead than red
Well-Known Member
This will do for noow as her faq re: it was removed.where has she said that? Do you have a link to the speech where she signals increased unemployment as one of her aims please?
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/8/18215774/green-new-deal-high-speed-train-air-travel
The plan calls for high-speed rail to the point air travel is unnecessary. Many fewer/0 air passengers would result in loss of jobs for airline employees.
Another GND tenet is economic security for those "unwilling to work" I'm not certain bone idle people have anything to do with environmentalism, myself.
Banned Tosspot
Well-Known Member
What have her looks got to do with it?I find her hugely attractive. Love ballsy, clever women.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
The correct rate of tax is the optimal rate of tax that accrues the most revenue. If it’s 70% above $10m then fine. If it’s 45% above $10m then also fine. What Republicans have done by shoveling more cash and tax breaks down the throats of the donors that own them is dumb because it’s pissing most people off and making them receptive to AOC’s message. AOC is smart because she can articulate and frame her message in a way that most people can understand and relate to. The people who will relate strongly to the message will also be people who voted for Trump.
The debate is not about 70% tax rates but about people who can afford it paying a fair share. Ignore the figure. It’s the message that counts.
what they are also shovelling down peoples throats is that their tax rates are going to be affected by omitting the fact that only a few multi-million and billionaires would be impacted.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
This will do for noow as her faq re: it was removed.
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/8/18215774/green-new-deal-high-speed-train-air-travel
The plan calls for high-speed rail to the point air travel is unnecessary. Many fewer/0 air passengers would result in loss of jobs for airline employees.
Another GND tenet is economic security for those "unwilling to work" I'm not certain bone idle people have anything to do with environmentalism, myself.
Its about reducing environmental damage of travel - there is no suggestion there would be zero air travel just a reduction - there would be huge numbers of jobs created building the infrastructure, manufacturing the trains, running the trains, staffing the trains and stations - as the article makes clear the rest of the developed world are doing this - America is decades behind the rest of the world in this technology - thats not MAGA philosophy surely is it? To run a 1970's rail service?