• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Tax Hike Idea Is Not About Soaking the Rich

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I realize many on the right are going to kneejerk on this issue but hear this guy out, read the article and see if we can't move a needle just a tiny bit.

Thing is, I do remember the 50s and when a man could support a family of four where his wife did not have to work -- he could pay the mortgage the car payment and have disposable income and the tax structure was roughly about where AOC is proposing it. but according to this author, and I agree, it's about more than that. One thing I have noticed that our standard of living has decreased rather proportionally to the chipping away of the progressive tax system of the 50s. I think it's time that we should take a good look on if we should go back to the way things were at least insofar as a tax structure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/opinion/ocasio-cortez-taxes.html

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has kick-started a much-needed debate about taxes. But the*debate, so far, has been misplaced. It’s obvious that the affluent —*who’ve seen their earnings boom since 1980 while their taxes fell*— can contribute more to the public coffers. And given the revenue needs of the country, it is necessary.

But that’s not the fundamental reason higher top marginal income tax rates are desirable. Their root justification is not about collecting revenue. It is about regulating inequality and the market economy. It is also about safeguarding democracy against oligarchy.

The world is becoming a place ruled by oligarchs and it's time to think about a solution
 
I realize many on the right are going to kneejerk on this issue but hear this guy out, read the article and see if we can't move a needle just a tiny bit.

Thing is, I do remember the 50s and when a man could support a family of four where his wife did not have to work -- he could pay the mortgage the car payment and have disposable income and the tax structure was roughly about where AOC is proposing it. but according to this author, and I agree, it's about more than that. One thing I have noticed that our standard of living has decreased rather proportionally to the chipping away of the progressive tax system of the 50s. I think it's time that we should take a good look on if we should go back to the way things were at least insofar as a tax structure.



The world is becoming a place ruled by oligarchs and it's time to think about a solution

You continue to try to relate upper income tax bracket rates to changes caused by cost of living inflation exceeding the rate of (median?) wage infaltion. No matter how much one taxes "the rich" it will not lower the cost of a home or car or raise the median wage. The increase in the cost of public college was not caused by federal income tax rate changes either.

Comparing the inflated cost of living today from 1950 to 2014: How declining purchasing power has hurt the middle class since 1950.
 
The reasoning for the taxation (soaking the rich vs. throttling plutocracy) does not address that historically speaking aristocracy tends to replace itself when forced to change form. In this case the aim is to break a wealth based aristocracy from dictating economics to a government aristocracy to do the same thing, but with a foolish expectation that all of a sudden governance drifts away from current realizations of power and greed at the expense of social and economic benefit.

The opinion piece in that article is just as dangerous as it ignores the lessons of government power, and assumes too much weight on taxation being the primary means to deal with income inequality.

Economic model type, organization of labor, income quintile trends, labor efficiency, labor participation rates, etc. all end up muted for a singular discussion as if going back to 1950's and 1960's thinking on taxation warns off oligarchical thinking. I am not convinced it will on its own, and we have so much momentum towards globalization of labor, goods and services that going with high taxation all of a sudden might cause unintended consequences.
 
I realize many on the right are going to kneejerk on this issue but hear this guy out, read the article and see if we can't move a needle just a tiny bit.

Thing is, I do remember the 50s and when a man could support a family of four where his wife did not have to work -- he could pay the mortgage the car payment and have disposable income and the tax structure was roughly about where AOC is proposing it. but according to this author, and I agree, it's about more than that. One thing I have noticed that our standard of living has decreased rather proportionally to the chipping away of the progressive tax system of the 50s. I think it's time that we should take a good look on if we should go back to the way things were at least insofar as a tax structure.



The world is becoming a place ruled by oligarchs and it's time to think about a solution

It’s about curtailing inequality and saving democracy.

Socialists. Ya gotta love the idealism. Pat them on the head. Tell them they are good people. Give them a puppy.
 
Socialists. Ya gotta love the idealism. Pat them on the head. Tell them they are good people. Give them a puppy.

Socialists. People pretending that this has anything whatsoever to do with socialists.

Pat them on the head. Help them keep avoiding reality, where thinking can be quite painful.
 
She's spouting the same lMarxist drivel that's been around for over century..

Hey but she's hot and has a nice rack so she's a 'fresh new voice" ;)
 
She's spouting the same lMarxist drivel that's been around for over century..

Hey but she's hot and has a nice rack so she's a 'fresh new voice" ;)

No, she's not, but I understand completely the compulsive urge to dishonestly claim that she is.
 
You continue to try to relate upper income tax bracket rates to changes caused by cost of living inflation exceeding the rate of (median?) wage infaltion. No matter how much one taxes "the rich" it will not lower the cost of a home or car or raise the median wage. The increase in the cost of public college was not caused by federal income tax rate changes either.

Comparing the inflated cost of living today from 1950 to 2014: How declining purchasing power has hurt the middle class since 1950.

Yet the standard of living in the 50s was better than it is now explain that one to me
 
She's spouting the same lMarxist drivel that's been around for over century..

Hey but she's hot and has a nice rack so she's a 'fresh new voice" ;)

I hope she runs for president in 2020. even though she's not old enough who would stop her. that would be racist.
 
She's spouting the same lMarxist drivel that's been around for over century..

Hey but she's hot and has a nice rack so she's a 'fresh new voice" ;)


She has a nice rack?

I had not noticed that and I usually do, (I am a man therefore I am a pig), I will have pay attention next time i see her.

But my favorite thing about her, and the only reason she is famous, is that she drives the cultists insane...
 
Yet the standard of living in the 50s was better than it is now explain that one to me

There won't be a discussion about this.
The needle can't be moved for some people.
I don't know what the answer is but I know it's not more government debt, rising corporate profit and 26 people owning 90% of the countries wealth.
My aunt went to nursing school in 1970 for free, that same school is charging 52k (no dorm, in state tuition and costs)for the same exact piece of paper. Something is wrong in that picture.
 
Yet the standard of living in the 50s was better than it is now explain that one to me

The standard of living was lower in 1950 and thus less expensive. One would expect to pay more for a 2,600 sq ft home than a 1000 sq ft home. One would expect to pay more for a digital cellphone with internet access for each member of the household than a single analog land line with only voice capability.

Average Size of US Homes, Decade by Decade
 
I realize many on the right are going to kneejerk on this issue but hear this guy out, read the article and see if we can't move a needle just a tiny bit.

Thing is, I do remember the 50s and when a man could support a family of four where his wife did not have to work -- he could pay the mortgage the car payment and have disposable income and the tax structure was roughly about where AOC is proposing it. but according to this author, and I agree, it's about more than that. One thing I have noticed that our standard of living has decreased rather proportionally to the chipping away of the progressive tax system of the 50s. I think it's time that we should take a good look on if we should go back to the way things were at least insofar as a tax structure.



The world is becoming a place ruled by oligarchs and it's time to think about a solution

Its called capitalism. People have a right to accumulate capital, and the purpose of taxation is not social or economic equality. Its to pay for the protection of life and liberty. Any attempt to force one person to pay more for the same services is inherently unfair and unjust.
 
Another person pining for the 1950's, where real men didn't have to compete with blacks and women. And nearly everyone in a gray flannel suit had a haberdasher and a milliner and pretty much no one had a credit card--including the government.
 
Another person pining for the 1950's, where real men didn't have to compete with blacks and women. And nearly everyone in a gray flannel suit had a haberdasher and a milliner and pretty much no one had a credit card--including the government.

Some of that sounds ok...
 
I realize many on the right are going to kneejerk on this issue but hear this guy out, read the article and see if we can't move a needle just a tiny bit.

Thing is, I do remember the 50s and when a man could support a family of four where his wife did not have to work -- he could pay the mortgage the car payment and have disposable income and the tax structure was roughly about where AOC is proposing it. but according to this author, and I agree, it's about more than that. One thing I have noticed that our standard of living has decreased rather proportionally to the chipping away of the progressive tax system of the 50s. I think it's time that we should take a good look on if we should go back to the way things were at least insofar as a tax structure.



The world is becoming a place ruled by oligarchs and it's time to think about a solution

If we were still making 1950 wages and it required you to work more hours for the same items you get today for working less then yea i guess.
the fact is that you want more and more and higher and higher wages. this increases the cost of good and items. people making more money
also means they can pay more for things like housing.

in 1950 the median house price was 7k dollars. now it is about 130k.
also the average sq foot was 983. now it is about 2,500.

So much of the rise in home pricing comes from expanded space, updated building codes requirements (they don't build homes like they did in the 50's).

the progressive tax system of the 1950's was a myth. no one paid those obscene rates. why? the number of tax write-offs were huge.
you could write off pretty much anything and everything.

You cannot tax your way to prosperity and you cannot tax your way to make other people more well off.
What you can do is set laws that makes it more incentive for companies to pay workers better.
re-writing corporate tax law that favors more incentives to pay workers more vs investors and executives.


but doing such things don't register with liberals. corporations are evil and everything should be beholden to government for everything.
 
I realize many on the right are going to kneejerk on this issue but hear this guy out, read the article and see if we can't move a needle just a tiny bit.

Thing is, I do remember the 50s and when a man could support a family of four where his wife did not have to work -- he could pay the mortgage the car payment and have disposable income and the tax structure was roughly about where AOC is proposing it. but according to this author, and I agree, it's about more than that. One thing I have noticed that our standard of living has decreased rather proportionally to the chipping away of the progressive tax system of the 50s. I think it's time that we should take a good look on if we should go back to the way things were at least insofar as a tax structure.



The world is becoming a place ruled by oligarchs and it's time to think about a solution

AOC is a ****ing moron, and there is no hear anything she blathers about out. She and her type get their way, it won't be the RICH getting soaked, people need to wake the **** up. Her ideas and those of people like her are not going to end well.
 
Thank you, that was a nice way to start the day!

Oh and I'm guessing exhibit C...:mrgreen:

I think so, but I don't like to rush to judgment based one picture.7576364-6508403-image-m-26_1545151880490.jpg

( for those who like the 'hot librarian " look.)
# I DO!
 
If we were still making 1950 wages and it required you to work more hours for the same items you get today for working less then yea i guess.
the fact is that you want more and more and higher and higher wages. this increases the cost of good and items. people making more money
also means they can pay more for things like housing.

in 1950 the median house price was 7k dollars. now it is about 130k.
also the average sq foot was 983. now it is about 2,500.

So much of the rise in home pricing comes from expanded space, updated building codes requirements (they don't build homes like they did in the 50's).

the progressive tax system of the 1950's was a myth. no one paid those obscene rates. why? the number of tax write-offs were huge.
you could write off pretty much anything and everything.

You cannot tax your way to prosperity and you cannot tax your way to make other people more well off.
What you can do is set laws that makes it more incentive for companies to pay workers better.
re-writing corporate tax law that favors more incentives to pay workers more vs investors and executives.



but doing such things don't register with liberals. corporations are evil and everything should be beholden to government for everything.

Could you be more specific about that (bolded above) assertion? 100% of direct labor costs are now tax deductible - since that cannot be increased without going negative (actually subsidizing direct labor costs) then what is your plan?
 
You continue to try to relate upper income tax bracket rates to changes caused by cost of living inflation exceeding the rate of (median?) wage infaltion. No matter how much one taxes "the rich" it will not lower the cost of a home or car or raise the median wage. The increase in the cost of public college was not caused by federal income tax rate changes either.

Comparing the inflated cost of living today from 1950 to 2014: How declining purchasing power has hurt the middle class since 1950.

This is true, but every year fewer people control more wealth. Take more of what is produced. We also have fewer business entities controlling more market share through mergers and acquisitions. Which reduces competition. Amazon has grown so large a competitor probably CAN'T arise to compete with it.. Alibaba in Asia is its only real competition.

Pensions are gone, and financial advisors are recommending peasants (tenants) instead. This means less homes available to buy, which drives prices up and justifies higher rents.

What we are seeing is nothing new. It has happened over and over and over again since we settled down. Settling down fundamentally changed the way we lived and "broke" our adaptations that prevented what has come to pass since. Our groups got too big for interpersonal relationships to keep greed and hunger for status/power. Rigid heirarchies and guards/soldiers countered everyone being an apex predator.

We lost the ability to tell Grog "No".

So the pattern of history has been those at the top feeding their hunger for status (there was no "wealth" when we were wanderers. Too much to carry) and power until they take so much it makes life untenable for everyone else and they are forced to stop. They never stop otherwise.

This is the problem we are facing. Admitting it to ourselves might go a long way towards addressing it.

I also have a strong belief that it is possible to "harness" their addictions to our advantage instead of our downfall. They need to feed them. There is a point where they will continue to produce while getting less than they want. A junkie will take a fix, even when he wants a fat sack. Status/powerheads will work harder for less to keep up with their actual competitors, other status/powerheads.

Modern capitalism is Highlander. There can only be one. They'll snatch food from your child's mouths to further this game. They do not care about you. You are a means to their ends. To be used and discarded.

But they have weaponized speech now. Which is protected by the first amendment (which I'm sure the founders would have worded differently had they foreseen this, considering that these are the tools by which every modern tyranny has been established and maintained).

So we're probably screwed.

But as far as taxes are concerned, I don't want their money. I want money left for others. A thousand millionaires are FAR better for the economy that matters to most of us than one billionaire. Calculate the point where an entity taking more is a drag on the economy and set base taxes rate at 90% after that. No deductions. They'll either take it and try to get more billions to make up the difference or leave "fruit on the vine) for new folks to take. Which would foment more competition.

Residential rental properties should be taxed progressively, steeply, to discourage the "peasants for pensions" practice. It will not end well if it continues as is. Its the Landed Gentry routine all over again.
 
Could you be more specific about that (bolded above) assertion? 100% of direct labor costs are now tax deductible - since that cannot be increased without going negative (actually subsidizing direct labor costs) then what is your plan?

actually i for one do not think taxing corporations is a good idea. it makes no sense. the better way is to encourage more employment and higher wages.
I would actually just drop the tax rate to 5% for corporations flat rate on profit.
in return corporations would file a report showing that the savings went to non-executive non-investor salaries and pay.
 
actually i for one do not think taxing corporations is a good idea. it makes no sense. the better way is to encourage more employment and higher wages.
I would actually just drop the tax rate to 5% for corporations flat rate on profit.
in return corporations would file a report showing that the savings went to non-executive non-investor salaries and pay.

After year one (the point at which tax rates were lowered) there are no "savings". Lowering taxation on employers would only result in the need to tax their employees more or, as Trump did, increase the deficit.
 
Back
Top Bottom