Billionaires in Davos hate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% tax on the rich

[AUDub 11,158]

This is an interesting article. 

 Link

 

Quote

 

Dell was asked on Wednesday whether he would support a proposal put forth by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to tax millionaires at a 70 percent tax rate on income exceeding $10 million, the audience for a Davos panel about tech and global inequality burst into laughter before he could answer.

Dell, founder and head of Dell Technologies, first responded by saying he’s more comfortable allocating significant resources through his private foundation than handing over that money to the government. But then he answered more directly.

 

Quote

"No, I am not supportive of that, and I don’t think it would help the growth of the U.S. economy,” he said in response to questions from The Washington Post.

When Dell was asked to explain why he thinks that, he said, “Name a country where that’s worked — ever.”

Co-panelist and MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson jumped in to offer an answer: “the United States.”

That is a brilliant answer lol. 

Quote

"But he emphasized that providing education and access to technologies would be a better long-term solution than increasing taxes.”

So how does he propose we pay for more access to education and technology?  Higher marginal rates aren't the end. They're the means.

 

---------------

 

I think AOC has a point, and one way or another, wealth redistribution is coming, especially if the economy tanks in the near future. It's become a lot more palatable among folks. 

90% tax rates built a lot of the infrastructure we rely on today. The interstate highway system, for instance, which did just as much for us economically as anything I can name off the top of my head. 

Now that our infrastructure is crumbling and policy like healthcare is at the forefront, it might be time to have this conversation. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

Sssssshhhhhh...I got half of Decatur mad at me over the 70% MTR...

When you start talking about Ike, JFK, etc having MTR like that and America Thriving Still, the mob grows silent.

[homersapien 11,395]

Oh no.  She wants everyone to pay a 70% tax rate.

I heard it from Rush just a few days ago.

[AUDub 11,158]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Oh no.  She wants everyone to pay a 70% tax rate.

I heard it from Rush just a few days ago.

I laugh every time I hear that. If I made 10,000,000 a year, I would gladly pay 70% on income after that. Hell, I’d have a really difficult time trying to find something to do with the initial 10,000,000

 

[homersapien 11,395]

Just now, AUDub said:

I laugh every time I hear that. If I made 10,000,000 a year, I would gladly pay 70% on income after that. Hell, id have a really difficult time trying to find something to do with the initial 10,000,000

Start a charitable foundation.....  worked for Trump. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

Quote

In 2017, the most recent year with a 990-PF, Dell's foundation distributed $130 million. In that same year, Dell's personal wealth increased by $2.1 billion. If he wanted to prove @aoc's point, he succeeded.

Nothing like a dose of reality to clarify the matter.

Under 70%MTR, Dell would have paid an additional $1,463,000,000, not a measly $130,000,000.

[AUloggerhead 2,242]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

This is an interesting article. 

 Link

 

That is a brilliant answer lol. 

So how does he propose we pay for more access to education and technology?  Higher marginal rates aren't the end. They're the means.

 

---------------

 

I think AOC has a point, and one way or another, wealth redistribution is coming, especially if the economy tanks in the near future. It's become a lot more palatable among folks. 

90% tax rates built a lot of the infrastructure we rely on today. The interstate highway system, for instance, which did just as much for us economically as anything I can name off the top of my head. 

Now that our infrastructure is crumbling and policy like healthcare is at the forefront, it might be time to have this conversation. 

All right, I'll play.  Assuming this is ever passed, what makes you think people such as AOC, Bernie, Marx, Engles et al will be content with stealing 70% of income above $10M?  Why not 80, 90 or hell, just make it 100%?  Who needs that much money anyway?  And then (more importantly,) when it's discovered that even 100% of income over $10M won't be enough to pay for their FeelzGood-Morally-Right-According-to-US-Agenda, what's to stop them from moving the target threshold downward?  Nothing. 

The problem is spending, and not "we-haven't-taxed-the-rich-enough."  Prove to me that Congress (whichever party is in control) can get spending under control, then we discuss increasing taxes.   

[homersapien 11,395]

13 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

All right, I'll play.  Assuming this is ever passed, what makes you think people such as AOC, Bernie, Marx, Engles et al will be content with stealing 70% of income above $10M?  Why not 80, 90 or hell, just make it 100%?  Who needs that much money anyway?  And then (more importantly,) when it's discovered that even 100% of income over $10M won't be enough to pay for their FeelzGood-Morally-Right-According-to-US-Agenda, what's to stop them from moving the target threshold downward?  Nothing. 

The problem is spending, and not "we-haven't-taxed-the-rich-enough."  Prove to me that Congress (whichever party is in control) can get spending under control, then we discuss increasing taxes.   

 

If we taxed the rich appropriately, spending wouldn't be such a problem.

You sound as if the Republicans are willing to actually cut spending.  Apparently, that's not politically viable or they would do so.  This sounds like a rationale approach to deficit spending to me.

 

[auburn41 492]

14 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Nothing like a dose of reality to clarify the matter.

Under 70%MTR, Dell would have paid an additional $1,463,000,000, not a measly $130,000,000.

Um, someone's increase in wealth has nothing to do with the amount of taxable income they have or the amount of INCOME Taxes they pay.  Just sayin'

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

Assuming this is ever passed, what makes you think people such as AOC, Bernie, Marx, Engles et al will be content with stealing 70% of income above $10M?

I take it you don't believe in paying taxes at all? Since it's "stealing"? I mean, we pay taxes, so we're already on this slippery slope you're worried about. 

The government isn't as efficient as I'd like, but I do like roads and schools and stuff. 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 hours ago, AUDub said:

I laugh every time I hear that. If I made 10,000,000 a year, I would gladly pay 70% on income after that. Hell, I’d have a really difficult time trying to find something to do with the initial 10,000,000

 

....sure you would

[WDavE 332]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

Start a charitable foundation.....  worked for Trump. 

For real money, try the Clinton foundation...

[homersapien 11,395]

30 minutes ago, WDavE said:

For real money, try the Clinton foundation...

Exactly. 

[AUloggerhead 2,242]

5 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I take it you don't believe in paying taxes at all? Since it's "stealing"? I mean, we pay taxes, so we're already on this slippery slope you're worried about. 

The government isn't as efficient as I'd like, but I do like roads and schools and stuff. 

 

Nonsense.  I'm opposed to arbitrary thresholds with no basis in reality proposed by people who don't know better (Sanders) or people who should know better (alleged economics degree conferee AOC.)  Yes, top marginal tax rates were as high as 91% under the Eisenhower admin, but they were lowered by the JFK admin first & then further still under the Reagan admin.  I'm in favor of any tax policy that grows the economy because revenues will increase when that happens.  Link 

Roads & schools & stuff?  Of course I'm in "favor" of such infrastructure.    I'm also strongly in favor of pay-as-you-go.  For instance, the Interstate Highway system came into being in 1956 under the Eisenhower admin but it wasn't paid for in full up front.  It took 35 years to construct the initial plan & numerous highway appropriation bills across that time frame to fund it all.  And guess what?  We're never going to stop paying for it because the system requires periodic maintenance in order to function properly.  So yeah, taxes are necessary, and prioritizing the expenditure of said taxes (i.e. spending) is absolutely necessary.  Sadly, our Congress has shown themselves to be derelict in that duty.  The last Congress to get a handle on spending was in the late 90s. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, AUloggerhead said:

I'm opposed to arbitrary thresholds with no basis in reality proposed by people who don't know better (Sanders) or people who should know better (alleged economics degree conferee AOC.) 

Ah. So if you don't like the number or the person proposing it, then it's arbitrary and they don't know better. 

Alleged degree conferee?

[AUloggerhead 2,242]

12 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Ah. So if you don't like the number or the person proposing it, then it's arbitrary and they don't know better. 

Alleged degree conferee?

Did you forget the "no basis in reality" part of my statement? 

Sanders is a lifelong socialist/communist/marxist -- no hope for him to learn from history if he hasn't already at this point.  It's been reported that AOC has an economics degree from Boston University and I freely acknowledge that.  However, given the shoddy state of news reporting coupled with her public comments to date indicate to me that she has an astonishingly shallow grasp of even basic economics.  Thus, my "alleged degree conferee" qualifier.  The difference between AOC & Sanders is that she is young & there is hope for her. 

[AUloggerhead 2,242]

Here's a pretty good article:  House Budget Chief Sees No Way to Balance the Budget within 10 years

Some highlites:

Quote

The country’s fiscal picture is so bad that the new Democratic chairman of the House Budget Committee says he doesn’t see a realistic way to write a budget that will get to balance within a decade.

Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky says the plan he will draw up for Democrats likely will include tax increases, but even with those, lawmakers would have to resort to gimmicks to close the annual trillion-dollar deficits forecasted for the next decade.

“In a 10-year window, the deficits right now are too high,” Mr. Yarmuth said. “There’s no way to get it to balance without ludicrous assumptions.”

Mr. Yarmuth says he still plans to write a budget resolution for fiscal 2020 that would lower deficits over time, but suggested gains would be limited by political realities.

One option for cuts is rolling back some of the $1.5 trillion tax-cut law Republicans passed in 2017, including increasing the lowered corporate tax rate as well as the rate for the top individual tax bracket.

“I’m sure, just as our budget proposals over the last few years have included increases in revenue, this one will, too,” he told The Washington Times.

Yet it’s not clear whether his budget resolution will take any action on entitlement spending such as Social Security and Medicare, which with interest on the debt are the items that will send the deficit soaring from $779 billion in 2018 to a projected $1 trillion in 2020 and $1.5 trillion by 2028.

Rep. Steve Womack, Arkansas Republican, said until Democrats are willing to tackle entitlements, they will struggle with balancing budgets.

“They’re in denial on the true drivers of the deficit and the debt,” said Mr. Womack, the top Republican on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Womack, as chairman of the committee last year, wrote a blueprint that would have slashed $8.1 trillion in spending over 10 years and aimed to bring the budget to balance in nine years.

That plan envisioned $5.4 trillion in savings from mandatory spending programs, including more than $500 billion from Medicare and $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and other health programs.

 

Quote

 

Democrats, though, have signaled that they’re likely to boost, not cut, government spending on health care.

Mr. Yarmuth said his goal is to put together a 2020 budget blueprint before lawmakers break for the Easter holiday in April.

Congress is supposed to pass a non-binding budget resolution by April 15 every year, but there’s no real penalty for missing that deadline and lawmakers haven’t hit the target in years.

The biggest debates will be over whether to keep spending caps in place for discretionary spending and how far Democrats want to go in proposing tax increases.

Newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and other Democrats have recently suggested increasing the top marginal tax rate for individuals to about 70 percent for incomes of $10 million or greater as a way to help pay for other spending — not necessarily to reduce deficits.

Even then, it’s not clear there’s enough money available to make a big dent in the deficit.

Increasing the top tax rate, currently 37 percent for individuals making more than $510,300, to a top marginal rate of 70 percent for ordinary income over $10 million could raise between $189 billion and $291 billion over a decade, according to recent projections by the Tax Foundation.

If the 70 percent rate were applied to all income greater than $10 million, including from capital gains and dividends, the government could actually lose money over that period if enough people delayed selling their assets to avoid taking the immediate hit from the higher rate, the Tax Foundation said.

On the corporate tax side, Mr. Yarmuth said he wants to defer to the House Ways and Means Committee.

The 2017 GOP tax law lowered the corporate rate from 35 percent to its current level of 21 percent.

Increasing the rate by 1 percentage point, to 22 percent, would increase revenue by $96 billion over 10 years, according to a report released last month by the Congressional Budget Office.

Whatever Mr. Yarmuth ends up writing, it will be tough to reconcile with the Senate, still controlled by the GOP.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, Wyoming Republican, is planning to move forward with a full 2020 budget resolution this year, though the GOP has rejected Democrats’ calls for tax increases.

He said a number of options exist for how to proceed.

“It’s possible to write a resolution to do anything you want to, but it’s aspirational,” Mr. Enzi said.

Fiscal watchdogs said it’s an uphill climb at best to bring the budget into balance.

“Balancing the budget in 10 years is completely impossible,” said Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

He said to balance in 2028, “Thirty percent of the projected government would have to be wiped out.” Even repealing the entire 2017 GOP tax law and eliminating all discretionary spending — an unthinkable proposal — might not enough, he said.

Mr. Riedl says the annual budget process — if and when either chamber goes through with it — essentially has become a public relations exercise.

 

AOC is right about en existential threat to the world in 12 years (or so,) although it's not about climate change or global warming/cooling or any other possible environmental disaster.  It's about the current & looming fiscal disaster which the US government has become.   

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

Here's a pretty good article:  House Budget Chief Sees No Way to Balance the Budget within 10 years

Some highlites:

AOC is right about en existential threat to the world in 12 years (or so,) although it's not about climate change or global warming/cooling or any other possible environmental disaster.  It's about the current & looming fiscal disaster which the US government has become.   

Amen.Sadly the liberals/socialists are in for a huge awakening just like Venezuela and other countries over the years. Unfortunately the rest of us will pay a price to, as will our cildren/grandchildren. Wake up America!!

[AUloggerhead 2,242]

3 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Amen.Sadly the liberals/socialists are in for a huge awakening just like Venezuela and other countries over the years. Unfortunately the rest of us will pay a price to, as will our cildren/grandchildren. Wake up America!!

Let me just put this out there:  this is not solely one party or one group's fault.  We are literally all in this together.  Any resolution in solving the problem is going to take cooperation from both sides.  Seeing as how the House faces election every 2 years means short term actions are not going to cut it.  Any long term solution will require both sides to agree to a plan and to stick with it for the duration.  

[homersapien 11,395]

18 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

Did you forget the "no basis in reality" part of my statement? 

Sanders is a lifelong socialist/communist/marxist -- no hope for him to learn from history if he hasn't already at this point.  It's been reported that AOC has an economics degree from Boston University and I freely acknowledge that.  However, given the shoddy state of news reporting coupled with her public comments to date indicate to me that she has an astonishingly shallow grasp of even basic economics.  Thus, my "alleged degree conferee" qualifier.  The difference between AOC & Sanders is that she is young & there is hope for her. 

I call BS on that. 

You probably think Obama is a Muslim.

[homersapien 11,395]

I just love it when Republicans start preaching fiscal responsibility. 

But it's coming early this season.  Usually doesn't happen until after a Democrat is elected POTUS. I suppose the house turnover in the mid-term sufficed. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

On 1/25/2019 at 10:00 AM, homersapien said:

I just love it when Republicans start preaching fiscal responsibility. 

But it's coming early this season.  Usually doesn't happen until after a Democrat is elected POTUS. I suppose the house turnover in the mid-term sufficed. 

For all you Republicans out there, there is too much truth in this. The last thing a Republican wants is Fiscal Responsibility. If they did we would have it by now. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

On 1/24/2019 at 7:56 AM, auburn41 said:

Um, someone's increase in wealth has nothing to do with the amount of taxable income they have or the amount of INCOME Taxes they pay.  Just sayin'

If you look at a one day you are correct. But over time, it works. At some point, that wealth increase has to be accounted for. 

[auburn41 492]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If you look at a one day you are correct. But over time, it works. At some point, that wealth increase has to be accounted for. 

Maybe you would be correct if "Capital Gains" rates went to 70%, but there is no" Income Tax" on wealth.  Hell the top 1% of income earners in the US pay almost 40% of all income taxes already.   That is more than what the bottom 90% pay combined.  The bottom 50% of income earners in the US pay like 3%.  I would be for paying a flat tax on income over a certain amount and do away with ALL the write-offs and deductions but there is no way that would ever be passed by the rich people in Congress.  BTW, why is it that all those Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen have so much money?......things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMM

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If you look at a one day you are correct. But over time, it works. At some point, that wealth increase has to be accounted for. 

Where and when has it worked over time?