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

[Conservative]

2017 government spending was $3.982 trillion.

"Current U.S. government spending is $4.407 trillion. That's the federal budget for the fiscal year 2019 (October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019). It's 21 percent of the gross domestic product." -- https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-spending-3305763

There is no 2019 budget that passed Congress nor have you addressed the Trump budget proposal for 2019

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative]

Why is that important? Nobody measures the health of an economy on total government expenditure to GDP. What economists measure is debt to GDP. Government revenue was $3.3 trillion in 2017. So the only figure everyone, but you apparently, is looking at is the $84 billion delta.

The issue was U.S. economy vs. Europe and in particular Sweden. The point continues to be the U.S. relies less on the govt. spending than Europe which is why the U.S. economies recovered so well and Europe floundered. The private sector economy has created the best economy in the world

 

[Cramer]

The issue was U.S. economy vs. Europe and in particular Sweden. The point continues to be the U.S. relies less on the govt. spending than Europe which is why the U.S. economies recovered so well and Europe floundered. The private sector economy has created the best economy in the world

i see a few numbers that i also found, were posted here. Looks like US spending to GDP is close to 21%. Our military budget is huge, and does create a lot of jobs.

The trade economics site, must factor in other numbers to get that number higher for both the US and Sweden.

Looking around, looks like Sweden spend is close to 28%. Not that big of a difference. (I thought it would be more, then again their spend on military is much less than ours, as noted earlier)

If the claim that government spending negatively effects an economy, because it is the government, vs the private sector, I do not think there is enough evidence to substantiate that claim.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I find conversations about the "70% tax" are usually fruitless because a ton of people actually think that under that plan for every $10 a person makes they'd pay $7 in taxes.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Liberals always think that the taxing the rich will pay for their pet social programs.

How did the ACA work out?

 

[Oborosen]

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



Underfunded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; homeless people starving in droves on the streets of this country's wealthiest cities; and a million other real problems and this useless sack of bones wants to take what would amount to one of the most expansive and progressive wealth taxes ever and use it to buy Teslas and Priuses for her yuppie peers.

Where's the liberalism, here? Where is the genuine caring about the human condition and how it can be improved?

Instead, with her focus on money-pit pet projects and buzzwording Ocasio-Cortez looks more and more like just another swamp creature.

Pitiful...

I like it when someone ask her exactly how this kind of stuck is going to work and you can start to see the smoke just billow out of her ears.

 

[Conservative]

i see a few numbers that i also found, were posted here. Looks like US spending to GDP is close to 21%. Our military budget is huge, and does create a lot of jobs.

The trade economics site, must factor in other numbers to get that number higher for both the US and Sweden.

Looking around, looks like Sweden spend is close to 28%. Not that big of a difference. (I thought it would be more, then again their spend on military is much less than ours, as noted earlier)

If the claim that government spending negatively effects an economy, because it is the government, vs the private sector, I do not think there is enough evidence to substantiate that claim.

21% of GDP?? 880 billion on a 21 trillion dollar GDP is 21%. Seems that the nightmare you claimed is one of teachers that taught you math. Never said that govt. spending negatively impacts the economy, it is where the govt. spends that money, bailing out the public sector in a private sector economy isn't a good return on investment especially when states aren't given the opportunity to do that. Obama bailed out the teacher's unions and teachers are state expenses not federal. Where is that apology?

 

[Fenton]

What's comedic is the GOP reaction to what is what was the standard tax policy for decades, that grew the middle class. AOC's ideas are endorsed by the world's leading economists. From 1944-1980, the lowest top marginal rate was 70%.

In the 1950s, with high marginal tax rates, we enjoyed tremendous economic growth and widely shared prosperity. Oh, and we built infrastructure in this country that was second to none, but which is now aging and outdated, and we can't improve it because the anti-taxers say we can't afford to.

Occasio's 70% top marginal rate wouldn't grow the middle class, it would gut it

And comparing the current US economy to the US economy of the 1950s is absurd. In the 50s manufacturers and companies had no competition from Asia or Europe to worry about, and due to a lack of overseas investment opportunities, capital stayed in the US
Consumers purchased American made products and Companies and wealth weren't incentivized to move offshor

There were also no Chinese imports or global competitors relying on currency manipulation to maintain and advantage over US exports

The effectiveness of confiscatory tax rates is predicated on the off chance that the wealthy ( corporations, Investors ) will simply play along.
They will not. France tried this nonsense in 2012, when Macron proposed a 75% top marginal rate

After 2 years of falling revenues and stagnant GDP, France was forced to abandon their 75% top marginal rate.

We know exactly how Occasio Cortez's or even Warren's tax policy will play out, so why support it if it only winds up hurting the US economy and the Middle-class ?

 

[Vern]

We know exactly how Occasio Cortez's or even Warren's tax policy will play out, so why support it if it only winds up hurting the US economy and the Middle-class ?

Fenton, I need to remind you that conservatives thought President Obama's stimulus would cause "hyperinflation, dollar collapse, market to zero". You and yours also predicted Obamacare would destroy the economy and make everybody part time. In both instances you and yours weren't just wrong. You were spectacularly wrong. You yourself have made some pretty jarring predictions that did not come to pass. This is from 2014

I'm starting to hear more and more that new investors should go slow on stocks.
Allot of people got pinched in 2008, and I think it's going to happen again but this time the losses are going to be exponentially more.
Japan went all in, but they should have made a few considerations before making the decision to send their country into bankruptcy.

And to be fair, that was two spectacularly wrong predictions in one post. I just think you should address why you were wrong previously before we should trust you on your latest economic prediction.

 

[Cramer]

21% of GDP?? 880 billion on a 21 trillion dollar GDP is 21%. Seems that the nightmare you claimed is one of teachers that taught you math. Never said that govt. spending negatively impacts the economy, it is where the govt. spends that money, bailing out the public sector in a private sector economy isn't a good return on investment especially when states aren't given the opportunity to do that. Obama bailed out the teacher's unions and teachers are state expenses not federal. Where is that apology?

Wait...are you suggesting the US only spent 880 billion in 2017?

In FY 2017, the Congressional Budget Office reported spending of $590 billion for defense, about 15% of the federal budget.

 

[Cramer]

Liberals always think that the taxing the rich will pay for their pet social programs.

How did the ACA work out?

It actually worked out pretty good for folks who did not have insurance. Would have been whole lot better if those Republican guvs who refused to implement the Medicaid portion, let it work as designed.

It was not perfect, but it was an improvement...for most.

 

[Cramer]

Occasio's 70% top marginal rate wouldn't grow the middle class, it would gut it

And comparing the current US economy to the US economy of the 1950s is absurd. In the 50s manufacturers and companies had no competition from Asia or Europe to worry about, and due to a lack of overseas investment opportunities, capital stayed in the US
Consumers purchased American made products and Companies and wealth weren't incentivized to move offshor

There were also no Chinese imports or global competitors relying on currency manipulation to maintain and advantage over US exports

The effectiveness of confiscatory tax rates is predicated on the off chance that the wealthy ( corporations, Investors ) will simply play along.
They will not. France tried this nonsense in 2012, when Macron proposed a 75% top marginal rate

After 2 years of falling revenues and stagnant GDP, France was forced to abandon their 75% top marginal rate.

We know exactly how Occasio Cortez's or even Warren's tax policy will play out, so why support it if it only winds up hurting the US economy and the Middle-class ?

Apples and oranges. France's top tax rate of 75% started at 1 million Euros. Ocasio-Cortez 70% starts at 10 million dollars.

Regrading the idea there was no competition in the 50's, i concur it was much less, but all economies in the OECD countries were doing well during that time.
Using the tax argument fails, as the top rate here then was 92% (that started in 1933). Looks like capital eagerly invested, even with those top tax rates.

 

[Fenton]

Fenton, I need to remind you that conservatives thought President Obama's stimulus would cause "hyperinflation, dollar collapse, market to zero". You and yours also predicted Obamacare would destroy the economy and make everybody part time. In both instances you and yours weren't just wrong. You were spectacularly wrong.

You would have to be " spectacularly " naive and gullible to support a 70% top marginal rate.
Gullible because you've confused Left wing demagoguery and identity politics with legitimate tax policy

Her rhetoric is simply red meat for her and Sanders supporters, it's not to be taken seriously VERN.

The rest of us, those who are informed anyway, know exactly how her 70% top marginal rate will play out. It's really not that difficult VERN.

France proposed a 75% top marginal rate back in 2012. It was supposed to increase revenues and close the gap between the wealthy and the poor.
Did it work ? Nope.
After 2 years of declining revenues and stagnant GDP growth, France was forced to abandon its 75% top marginal rate and return to the previous rate of 43 %

How do you NOT know about this VERN ?

France 75% super tax failure
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhar...tax-failure-a-blow-to-pikettys-economics/amp/

In the real world, wealth and capital move AWAY from confiscatory tax rates VERN and what happened in France is a great example of the unintended consequences of a pigovian tax

 

[Vern]

You would have to be " spectacularly " naive and gullible to support a 70% top marginal rate.

fenton, I've just proven I would be " spectacularly naive and gullible" if I listened to you or any conservative on any economic matter. You should address why you and yours are wrong about every economic prediction then explain how this prediction is different. You and every conservative on the planet has a credibility problem when it comes to economics.

 

[Fenton]

Apples and oranges. France's top tax rate of 75% started at 1 million Euros. Ocasio-Cortez 70% starts at 10 million dollars.

Regrading the idea there was no competition in the 50's, i concur it was much less, but all economies in the OECD countries were doing well during that time.
Using the tax argument fails, as the top rate here then was 92% (that started in 1933). Looks like capital eagerly invested, even with those top tax rates.

Thats nonsense. Wealth and capital will always move away from confiscatory tax rates regardless of where they're implemented or who they're directed at

Under Obama, Corporations offshored trillions of dollars in profits where they sat idle for years instead of being invested in the US economy. And tax rates under Obama were no wear near what these Socialist politicans are proposing

And comparing the current US economy to the economy of the 1950s to justify massive tax increases is absurd.

Politicians who make that argument shouldn't be allowed to affect US tax policy because obviously they're clueless and have no idea what they're talking about

We had a manufacturing sector that had no competition from Asia or Europe and no global competitors illegally manipulating their currency, or subsiding their exports to gain and maintain a trade advantage over American manufacturers
. Americans purchased American made products and investment capital stayed in the US
. Not to mention hardly anyone payed those rates.

In 2019, Corporations and the wealthy have multiple options when comes to avoiding tax increases that are predicated on envy and class warfare rhetoric. They will NEVER pay those rates

These insane proposals actually INCREASES the gap between the Rich and poor because they drive investment capital offshore. That leads to less investment, lower economic growth and and less jobs
.

 

[Port & Starboard]

It actually worked out pretty good for folks who did not have insurance. Would have been whole lot better if those Republican guvs who refused to implement the Medicaid portion, let it work as designed.

It was not perfect, but it was an improvement...for most.

Broke the backs of the middle class to pay for the poor.

Meanwhile the politicians were exempt from their own law.

BS...with your "worked out pretty good"

 

[Cramer]

Thats nonsense. Wealth and capital will always move away from confiscatory tax rates regardless of where they're implemented or who they're directed at

Disagree. They did not move away in the 50's and 60's.

Your post reminds me of this quote:

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -A. Lincoln

Under Obama, Corporations offshored trillions of dollars in profits where they sat idle for years instead of being invested in the US economy. And tax rates under Obama were no wear near what these Socialist politicans are proposing

Corps have offshored for decades. And what happen when they were able to repatriate their cash under lower taxes? They primarily bought back their stock to increase their stock value, to put more money in their pockets.

These insane proposals actually INCREASES the gap between the Rich and poor because they drive investment capital offshore. That leads to less investment, lower economic growth and and less jobs
.

Damn, are you an investment banker? You certainly have their backs.

 

[Conservative]

Wait...are you suggesting the US only spent 880 billion in 2017?

In FY 2017, the Congressional Budget Office reported spending of $590 billion for defense, about 15% of the federal budget.

You really don't have a clue about this issue which started out with Govt. spending as a percentage of GDP and my point stands. Govt. spending includes Defense spending which was around 880 billion in 2017 and part of that total govt. spending. Your self proclaimed being my worst nightmare has backfired completely as you show you are totally clueless when it comes to the official GDP data and what percentage govt. spending is to GDP, I gave you the official numbers from 2010 to 2017 with total GDP and govt. spending. Let's see if you are mature enough to admit when wrong

 

[Cramer]

Broke the backs of the middle class to pay for the poor.

Conservative economic policies have broke the back of the middle class in the last 30+ years, AKA, Reaganism.

Attacked unions, cut regulations that protected the middles class, protects employers that blatantly break the law (hiring undocumented immigrants), ran up the debt, and allow monopolies to stifle competition.

Note, i said conservative policies, as too many Democrats over the years bought into and supported those insane policies, including B. Clinton.

Meanwhile the politicians were exempt from their own law.

On this we agree.

BS...with your "worked out pretty good"

I stand by my statement, For most, it was good.

 

[Jack Hays]

Conservative economic policies have broke the back of the middle class in the last 30+ years, AKA, Reaganism.

Attacked unions, cut regulations that protected the middles class, protects employers that blatantly break the law (hiring undocumented immigrants), ran up the debt, and allow monopolies to stifle competition.

Note, i said conservative policies, as too many Democrats over the years bought into and supported those insane policies, including B. Clinton.


On this we agree.


I stand by my statement, For most, it was good.

Nothing about the middle class has been broken. US policies had little to do with economic evolution in the last thirty years, from either the left or the right. What happened was that the artificial dominance of the US economy post-WW2 (1945-75) came to an end. Competition again became serious, and the economic outlook of the middle class returned to historic (pre-WW2) norms.

 

[Cramer]

You really don't have a clue about this issue which started out with Govt. spending as a percentage of GDP and my point stands. Govt. spending includes Defense spending which was around 880 billion in 2017 and part of that total govt. spending. Your self proclaimed being my worst nightmare has backfired completely as you show you are totally clueless when it comes to the official GDP data and what percentage govt. spending is to GDP, I gave you the official numbers from 2010 to 2017 with total GDP and govt. spending. Let's see if you are mature enough to admit when wrong

You said 880 billion was all of the spend in 2017. You are wrong.
I admit the numbers form Tradingeconomics apesrs to be off, but they probably factor in other variables to come to their conclusion.

Total spend in 2017 was 3.98 trillion. GDP was 19.39 trillion. 20.5%

How are those numbers off?

 

[MTAtech]

Occasio's 70% top marginal rate wouldn't grow the middle class, it would gut it

And comparing the current US economy to the US economy of the 1950s is absurd. In the 50s manufacturers and companies had no competition from Asia or Europe to worry about, and due to a lack of overseas investment opportunities, capital stayed in the US
Consumers purchased American made products and Companies and wealth weren't incentivized to move offshor

There were also no Chinese imports or global competitors relying on currency manipulation to maintain and advantage over US exports

The effectiveness of confiscatory tax rates is predicated on the off chance that the wealthy ( corporations, Investors ) will simply play along.
They will not. France tried this nonsense in 2012, when Macron proposed a 75% top marginal rate

After 2 years of falling revenues and stagnant GDP, France was forced to abandon their 75% top marginal rate.

We know exactly how Occasio Cortez's or even Warren's tax policy will play out, so why support it if it only winds up hurting the US economy and the Middle-class ?

We have been here before, so I will give you the same answers.

You assert that, "Occasio's 70% top marginal rate wouldn't grow the middle class, it would gut it." You know that how?

As for the rest is just the The Europe-in-Rubble Excuse:

Whenever I point out how well America did with strong unions and highly progressive taxation after World War II, I can count on conservatives trying to resolve their cognitive dissonance by saying “but it was easy then — all our competitors were in ruins!” You can see this all over the comments on today’s column.

Sorry, guys, but that’s bad history and very bad economics.
On the history: the great postwar boom wasn’t just a few years after the war; it was a whole generation long, from 1947 to 1973 — well into an era in which Europe had very much recovered. Here’s West German GDP per capita as a share of US GDP per capita:




The Europe-in-ruins era was long over while the US boom was still going strong.
But the bad history is incidental; the really key point is that this is nonsense economics. Yes, our competitors were in ruins for a while; so were our customers (who were more or less the same countries). Basically, we had nobody to trade with. Here’s exports and imports as a percentage of US GDP:



...

 

[Cramer]

Nothing about the middle class has been broken. US policies had little to do with economic evolution in the last thirty years, from either the left or the right. What happened was that the artificial dominance of the US economy post-WW2 (1945-75) came to an end. Competition again became serious, and the economic outlook of the middle class returned to historic (pre-WW2) norms.

You really do not think Reaganomics had an effect?
Breaking up unions
WTO
Trickle down.
Not enforcing the Sherman act.
De-regulating the S&L
gramm leach bliley
TELCO act of 1996


Come on man, you can't be serious.

 

[Jack Hays]

You really do not think Reaganomics had an effect?
Breaking up unions
WTO
Trickle down.
Not enforcing the Sherman act.
De-regulating the S&L
gramm leach bliley
TELCO act of 1996


Come on man, you can't be serious.

I'm quite serious. Reaganomics created the foundation for a generation of prosperity.
And btw, even the man claimed to be the author of "trickle down" economics (in the 1920's) never advocated any such thing.

 

[Conservative]

You said 880 billion was all of the spend in 2017. You are wrong.
I admit the numbers form Tradingeconomics apesrs to be off, but they probably factor in other variables to come to their conclusion.

Total spend in 2017 was 3.98 trillion. GDP was 19.39 trillion. 20.5%

How are those numbers off?

No that isn't what I said the 880 billion dollars was defense spending total was over three trillion dollars on a 21 trillion dollar economy keep trying to dig yourself out of this mess you created for yourself

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk