Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez suggests up to 70% tax on the wealthy

Mar 4, 2014
1,511
180
380
#1
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-1080874

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is floating an income tax rate as high as 60 to 70 percent on the highest-earning Americans to combat carbon emissions.
Speaking with Anderson Cooper in a “60 Minutes” interview scheduled to air Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez said a dramatic increase in taxes could support her “Green New Deal” goal of eliminating the use of fossil fuels within 12 years — a goal she acknowledges is ambitious.
“What is the problem with trying to push our technological capacities to the furthest extent possible?” Ocasio-Cortez asked. “There’s an element where yeah, people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes.”
Ocasio-Cortez pointed out that in a progressive tax rate system, not all income for a high earner is taxed at such a high rate. Rather, rates increase on each additional level of income, with dramatic increases on especially high earnings, such as $10 million.
When Cooper pointed out such a tax plan would be a “radical” move, Ocasio-Cortez embraced the label, arguing the most influential historical figures, from Abraham Lincoln to Franklin D. Roosevelt, were called radical for their agendas as well.
“I think that it only has ever been radicals that have changed this country,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Yeah, if that’s what radical means, call me a radical.”
It’s amazing to me that people don’t realize that there isn’t enough money you can extract from rich people to fund all these pie in the sky programs. They will eventually come for the middle and upper middle class people who think this stuff doesn’t affect them.

It’s also scary to me that ideas like this are becoming mainstream Democratic Party ideas.
 
May 17, 2012
5,401
1,361
455
Canada
#3
I doubt these ideas are actually mainstream. It is just being covered and given far too much attention. Nobody else in the house is going to give these ideas any light. Why is she on 60 minutes? Because she has a large social media presence? Far too much focus has been put on social media and these news outlets are just pandering to her internet followers.
 
Oct 1, 2006
3,439
2,938
1,090
#6
When Cooper pointed out such a tax plan would be a “radical” move, Ocasio-Cortez embraced the label, arguing the most influential historical figures, from Abraham Lincoln to Franklin D. Roosevelt, were called radical for their agendas as well.
Amazing how an "adult" who couldn't figure out how to get an apartment for one month before taking office thinks so much of herself.

I mean, she could just have worked at McDonald's, or that nice little Subway one block from the Capitol.
 

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,483
250
690
#9
It's a sweet dream to dream. Need way more political capital than they have to do it, and I doubt it has any traction within the Dem party itself.
 
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
#12
It wouldn't even be that effective on the super elite when most of their yearly profits are from capital gains. We've had progressive tax rates go over 90% before but considering they were during and directly after WWII...
 
Likes: DeepEnigma
Oct 26, 2018
1,752
1,196
230
#13
Firstly, someone who is 29 years old should not be qualified to lead any political representation. Not enough experience in any way, which perfectly fits my second point which I had to google her background..... and I was spot on with my guess..... she's never worked in the private sector.

Her jobs have been academic kinds of jobs. The real world is totally different than any classroom kinds of lectures.

Oh well, they elected her.

IMO, anyone in a political job should have some experience in a real company where you actually get to see how economies/societies work, where you get an idea of different people and how money is made and spent.

Problem is, lots of politicians have political background booksmarts or some reason are lawyers working at firms. This kind of experience is not good experience in my books to know how to lead swaths of people.

It's like running a company well. You need a good mix of business skills, people skills and knowing how things work in a cycle for long term success. You don't hire a high school teacher or criminal lawyer to lead a business...... which is what an economy and people in it are similar to.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
#17
Firstly, someone who is 29 years old should not be qualified to lead any political representation. Not enough experience in any way, which perfectly fits my second point which I had to google her background..... and I was spot on with my guess..... she's never worked in the private sector.

Her jobs have been academic kinds of jobs. The real world is totally different than any classroom kinds of lectures.

Oh well, they elected her.

IMO, anyone in a political job should have some experience in a real company where you actually get to see how economies/societies work, where you get an idea of different people and how money is made and spent.

Problem is, lots of politicians have political background booksmarts or some reason are lawyers working at firms. This kind of experience is not good experience in my books to know how to lead swaths of people.

It's like running a company well. You need a good mix of business skills, people skills and knowing how things work in a cycle for long term success. You don't hire a high school teacher or criminal lawyer to lead a business...... which is what an economy and people in it are similar to.
I can't agree with this. People from all walks of life should be involved in politics. I don't want politics filled with nothing but corporate shills (oh wait it already is). Should only prior military be deciding foreign policy? How about only those who once benefited from welfare be allowed to talk about social spending? Attack the ideas, not the person.
 
Aug 29, 2018
650
753
235
33
Bartow, Florida, USA
#18
Start taxing companies for hiring illegals, and use that money to combat CO2 emissions.
I've suggested this for years. A 1% tax on revenue per infraction, not net profit, for any corporation caught knowingly employing illegal immigrants would put a drastic dent into illegal immigration. Depending on the industry a single ICE raid could wipe a business out. Note that an employer who does their due diligence, and has a clean paper trail to back that up will be held blameless. It's not on the employer to magically know who is using a stolen SSN if all the info comes back shiney.

The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants come here for economic reasons. An utterly draconian crackdown on employers who knowingly break the law will do a lot to destroy that demand.
 
Likes: CatLady
Dec 3, 2013
18,772
12,690
565
#19
Taxes, taxes, taxes... that is always the mantra for those who want to divert attention away from overspending, poor budgeting, pocket lining, etc., that goes on with the establishment.

For once I would like to see people run on platforms of proper audits and budgeting, but then again, your ass would not even make it out of the potential candidates to run for office.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
1,752
1,196
230
#23
I can't agree with this. People from all walks of life should be involved in politics. I don't want politics filled with nothing but corporate shills (oh wait it already is). Should only prior military be deciding foreign policy? How about only those who once benefited from welfare be allowed to talk about social spending? Attack the ideas, not the person.
Sure I can attack the person. What experience does she at 29 have to be a political leader? What awesome experience did Arnold Schwarzenegger have over his opponents in California? Yet he won.

Just because someone works in the private sector doesn't mean they are money mongering shill. And I did say should have "some" private experience. I never said it's be all and end all. I even said you need a good mix of business and people skills and knowing how cycles work.

What the private sector does do is teach people how cycles work in terms of products and services, revenue, profits and how to run an organization both internally and externally. And people management is very important.

Governments can learn more from this since it seems just about every government is always in insane levels of debt, getting worse, and nobody seems to care if country debt is $1 billion or $1 gazillion. In business, you need grounding as you can only run it well in debt for so long. You can't borrow forever. But lucky for governments they can somehow do this forever.
 
Likes: matt404au
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
#24
Sure I can attack the person. What experience does she at 29 have to be a political leader? What awesome experience did Arnold Schwarzenegger have over his opponents in California? Yet he won.

Just because someone works in the private sector doesn't mean they are money mongering shill. And I did say should have "some" private experience. I never said it's be all and end all. I even said you need a good mix of business and people skills and knowing how cycles work.

What the private sector does do is teach people how cycles work in terms of products and services, revenue, profits and how to run an organization both internally and externally. And people management is very important.

Governments can learn more from this since it seems just about every government is always in insane levels of debt, getting worse, and nobody seems to care if country debt is $1 billion or $1 gazillion. In business, you need grounding as you can only run it well in debt for so long. You can't borrow forever. But lucky for governments they can somehow do this forever.
The corporate mentality doesn't translate into the government.
 
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
#25
Sure I can attack the person. What experience does she at 29 have to be a political leader? What awesome experience did Arnold Schwarzenegger have over his opponents in California? Yet he won.

Just because someone works in the private sector doesn't mean they are money mongering shill. And I did say should have "some" private experience. I never said it's be all and end all. I even said you need a good mix of business and people skills and knowing how cycles work.

What the private sector does do is teach people how cycles work in terms of products and services, revenue, profits and how to run an organization both internally and externally. And people management is very important.

Governments can learn more from this since it seems just about every government is always in insane levels of debt, getting worse, and nobody seems to care if country debt is $1 billion or $1 gazillion. In business, you need grounding as you can only run it well in debt for so long. You can't borrow forever. But lucky for governments they can somehow do this forever.
Sure, those skills can be valuable but the possession of those skills or lack thereof has nothing to do with ideas that must be debated. People bagged on Bernie for having too much wealth. Now they bag on AOC for being too poor.

Ignore people and hand-wave them away and you just legitimize them to curious fence sitters. At some point you have to actually fight the ideas themselves, not the person making them.
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,511
180
380
#26
Regardless of what one thinks of her politics, let's not pretend a 70% rate would be something outrageous, out-of-this-world. 70% was America's top rate all the way to 1981, when the Economic Recovery Tax Act slashed it to 50%. Many European countries have similarly high tax % for their top brackets.
Just because it happened in the past doesn’t make it any less outrageous or ridiculous in modern context. Plus, those high end marginal rates were never paid with as many loopholes that existed.

Also, I could care less what Europe does with their marginal tax rates. Their spending is unsustainable (hence these ridiculous high tax rates), as evidenced by pretty much all of the big Mediterranean counties (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal) having major financial crises and sustained unemployment. Germany won’t be around forever to bail these counties out. I’d prefer the US NOT follow this example.

In this thread we have people who do not understand what a marginal tax bracket is or that the top tax bracket in the 60s was 91%.

Here is a test for you. If I make 1 million dollars in income a year and the top marginal tax rate is 70%. How much do I pay a year in taxes? (Hint:it’s not 700,000 dollars)
What’s your point? I, and I imagine most here, know how marginal rates work. Nobody has posted anything to make you think otherwise. A top end tax rate of 70% on only anything above $1 million is stupid and outrageous.
 
Nov 12, 2016
756
772
250
#27
I disagree with all of the comments about this movement being because of her lack of knowledge. Do I agree that she doesn't hold any qualification or skill? Absolutely. This is also very scary that we as a country support people like this. It's the new communist age, with a fresh coat of paint.

However, this is not a matter about lacking "knowledge in economics". It's about pandering votes from the poor, loser, masses that hate successful people. Tell them you will take away from all of the rich, white, oppressors, and give it back to them. Why wouldn't they vote for this?
 
Oct 26, 2018
1,752
1,196
230
#28
The corporate mentality doesn't translate into the government.
Maybe more of it should hit government. At least you'd get some more dollars and senses (and cents) being focused on, instead of the easy way out of bumping up tax rates.

Here is something that is pretty universal..... governments overpay for stuff.

Every company I've worked for with government contracts is based on a bid system. And for the bids we won they paid the highest prices. How high? Our account managers submitted our regular list price (which nobody pays), and the province accepted it. No further negotiation like a typical retail buyer would do at suppliers back and forth. That's how easy it is to score profits.

Why do you think any industries heavily linked to government.... healthcare and military..... are always huge and profitable? Score those multi year gov contracts and your company basically hit the lottery.

You'd think governments with their huge dept budget would have excellent buyers/negotiators right up their with seasoned Walmart vets, but they don't come close.

Put it this way...... the government paid higher prices for us than some small regional chains that don't even hit out top 30 list of accounts.
 
Last edited:
Jan 26, 2018
903
959
200
#29
Regardless of what one thinks of her politics, let's not pretend a 70% rate would be something outrageous, out-of-this-world. 70% was America's top rate all the way to 1981, when the Economic Recovery Tax Act slashed it to 50%. Many European countries have similarly high tax % for their top brackets.
With the way deductions worked in 1981 the effective tax rate was roughly 45% fyi
 
Likes: Mihos
Nov 23, 2010
4,270
210
625
#30
She would be on better footing if the goal was address the fact many Americans don't appreciate how the US bends over backwards. A lot of people are pretending they're constantly under attack, lobbying isn't paying off big time and that they're overtaxed. It's clearly a phony story.

I don't do that myself. I also don't advance propaganda campaigns to slash welfare.

At the end of the day, millions of people are allowed to legally reduce their tax burden. It's not necessary for the economy to do well yet people get a handout. Plus, the US is one of the top locations in the world for shell companies and money laundering. A hotbed for white collar crime. The only reason why people aren't being prosecuted is because the authorities aren't interested. They'd rather lock people up over petty crimes and chump change.

Anyway, I definitely wouldn't want my taxes to go up to "pay" for Cortez's green deal. Governments don't need my money to fight climate change. Just like they didn't need to raise taxes on someone else to give me a nice tax cut. Countries like the US would be a much better place to live if people stop pretending we can afford regime changes and big tax cuts for corporations, but are broke when it comes to having 1st world infrastructure or universal health care. The priorities haven't been good for years.
 
Oct 17, 2016
82
70
215
#31
Also, I could care less what Europe does with their marginal tax rates. Their spending is unsustainable (hence these ridiculous high tax rates), as evidenced by pretty much all of the big Mediterranean counties (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal) having major financial crises and sustained unemployment. Germany won’t be around forever to bail these counties out. I’d prefer the US NOT follow this example.
Spain was actually running a surplus on the eve of the 2008 crash and neither Italy nor Portugal seem to be struggling to pay their debt, which remains entirely serviceable. Contrary to popular perception, most Mediterranean countries were and are fairly fiscally responsible. There's plenty of literature about this, but both Krugman and Stiglitz have written extensively on this subject, which to this day is shrouded in many layers of misrepresentation.

With the way deductions worked in 1981 the effective tax rate was roughly 45% fyi
I'm aware. It'd still be a massive improvement if we went back to the numbers we had in the early 1950s. Using the Tax Foundation numbers, the average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, vs. 40.8 percent today. To be among the top 1 percent of U.S. earners, a family needs an income of $421,926, more than enough money to contribute their fair share to our Treasury.
 
Aug 2, 2015
4,780
413
335
#33
So I assume she will be giving away 70% of her congress pension as well? :)
The reality is this kind of taxation doesn't work. Rich people have access to accountants and lawyers that will always find a way for their clients to not pay.
If you want more fair taxation in this era you need to hit corporations and not their profits, but revenues generated in USA
 
Aug 11, 2018
593
452
215
#34
Reading the OP she doesn't really go into specifics much, but she's talking about a 60 to 70% income tax on certain tax brackets and uses 10+ million as an example. Looking at the current tax brackets in the US (I'm just using wikipedia so correct me if I'm wrong) you already have 37% income tax on 500k+? Doesn't seem like too much of a crazy continuation of the brackets. Am I missing something?
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,505
5,585
335
#35
I actually want to see this. And then her face realizing that all these wealthy people will leave the country and take their companies with them. The look on her face and everyone who supports this would be really something^^
 
Nov 30, 2006
1,647
22
995
#36
I actually want to see this. And then her face realizing that all these wealthy people will leave the country and take their companies with them. The look on her face and everyone who supports this would be really something^^
well I was going to say shes drunk and needs to go home but while looking more about the story i read this on yahoo

"In 1932, Congress raised the marginal income-tax rate on top earners to 63 percent. It remained high from the 1950s through the 1970s, reaching a maximum of over 90 percent, and never dipped below 70 percent. It was slashed in the 80s. In 2018, the highest rate on earned income was dropped from 44 percent to 37 percent".
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,505
5,585
335
#37
well I was going to say shes drunk and needs to go home but while looking more about the story i read this on yahoo

"In 1932, Congress raised the marginal income-tax rate on top earners to 63 percent. It remained high from the 1950s through the 1970s, reaching a maximum of over 90 percent, and never dipped below 70 percent. It was slashed in the 80s. In 2018, the highest rate on earned income was dropped from 44 percent to 37 percent".
The world has changed. It is way more global. China is a big player too. If you know put them to 70% many people will leave and if you also put it on companies many will relocate as well. You really can not compare it to the 70s.

PS: I also pay up 35% with an income of 34k. But these are the costs of shitty healthcare as well.
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
1,647
22
995
#38
The world has changed. It is way more global. China is a big player too. If you know put them to 70% many people will leave and if you also put it on companies many will relocate as well. You really can not compare it to the 70s.

PS: I also pay up 35% with an income of 34k. But these are the costs of shitty healthcare as well.
well yes and probably the reason it dipped originally. 70s, 80s is around the time america first went global
 
Jan 26, 2018
903
959
200
#40
Spain was actually running a surplus on the eve of the 2008 crash and neither Italy nor Portugal seem to be struggling to pay their debt, which remains entirely serviceable. Contrary to popular perception, most Mediterranean countries were and are fairly fiscally responsible. There's plenty of literature about this, but both Krugman and Stiglitz have written extensively on this subject, which to this day is shrouded in many layers of misrepresentation.



I'm aware. It'd still be a massive improvement if we went back to the numbers we had in the early 1950s. Using the Tax Foundation numbers, the average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, vs. 40.8 percent today. To be among the top 1 percent of U.S. earners, a family needs an income of $421,926, more than enough money to contribute their fair share to our Treasury.
Dude the top 1% contribute more than the other 99% today relative to the 1950s.....
 
Jan 26, 2018
903
959
200
#41
Reading the OP she doesn't really go into specifics much, but she's talking about a 60 to 70% income tax on certain tax brackets and uses 10+ million as an example. Looking at the current tax brackets in the US (I'm just using wikipedia so correct me if I'm wrong) you already have 37% income tax on 500k+? Doesn't seem like too much of a crazy continuation of the brackets. Am I missing something?

When those people move out of the country because of high taxes there will be a net loss. Look at people and business fleeing California to places like Texas because of high taxes. The same thing will happen.
 
Sep 2, 2018
147
49
185
27
#42
Not a fan of high taxes BUT marginal rate must be way higher on mega-rich people and also on capital gains. The marginal willingness to pay for such people is higher because of higher income. Nothing unheard of. The U.S. was a prosperous country after the war even if the marginal tax on the very rich was as high as 90%.

In this thread we have people who do not understand what a marginal tax bracket is or that the top tax bracket in the 60s was 91%.

Here is a test for you. If I make 1 million dollars in income a year and the top marginal tax rate is 70%. How much do I pay a year in taxes? (Hint:it’s not 700,000 dollars)
There are already plenty of examples of this misinterpretation in this very thread.
 
Likes: playoverwork

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,063
4,857
485
#43
I do not like Cortez and I think that 70 percent tax is absolutely asinine - but I do believe that the wealthy should be taxed more than they currently are. How much more is debatable.
 
Sep 2, 2018
147
49
185
27
#44
Mar 23, 2018
860
499
260
#45
Firstly, someone who is 29 years old should not be qualified to lead any political representation. Not enough experience in any way, which perfectly fits my second point which I had to google her background..... and I was spot on with my guess..... she's never worked in the private sector.

Her jobs have been academic kinds of jobs. The real world is totally different than any classroom kinds of lectures.

Oh well, they elected her.

IMO, anyone in a political job should have some experience in a real company where you actually get to see how economies/societies work, where you get an idea of different people and how money is made and spent.

Problem is, lots of politicians have political background booksmarts or some reason are lawyers working at firms. This kind of experience is not good experience in my books to know how to lead swaths of people.

It's like running a company well. You need a good mix of business skills, people skills and knowing how things work in a cycle for long term success. You don't hire a high school teacher or criminal lawyer to lead a business...... which is what an economy and people in it are similar to.
I don't think age matters. It's the work experience. If this kid was extremely talented and finished harvard when he/she was 12, then has 17 years of in field experience. I would have zero issue's with it.

Experience is what matters in the field itself, and not theoretic book knowledge only.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,954
3,923
460
#46
I sometimes think she was a plant by the neolibs in the DNC to make progressives look like idiots and to discredit Bernie. She confirms it every time she opens her mouth. The fact that she won shows that people vote party over substance far too often. They literally ran a sack of potatoes with a D pinned to it and won.

 
May 22, 2018
4,096
2,899
265
#47
Honestly at this point I take the continuous failed attacks on her to be a sign of just how scared the Right is of her and the possibility of more people like her rising to positions of power. None of their attempts at smearing her work. She shrugs them off and simultaneously embarrasses them in return for their trouble. She doesn't just take the criticism quietly like other Dems. She is a strong female politician that fights back and people love her for it. And it terrifies them.


And its very entertaining to watch I must say.
 
Last edited:

Mr Nash

square pies = communism
Jun 8, 2004
4,284
322
1,505
#49
Yeah, that won't cause capital flight at all. Why not tackle something tough like finding a way to reallocate military spending without half of congress and the senate jumping down your throat rather than just playing to the peanut gallery?
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,954
3,923
460
#50
Honestly at this point I take the continuous failed attacks on her to be a sign of just how scared the Right is of her and the possibility of more people like her rising to positions of power. None of their attempts at smearing her work. She shrugs them off and simultaneously embarrasses them in return for their trouble. She doesn't just take the criticism quietly like other Dems. She is a strong female politician that fights back and people love her for it. And it terrifies them.


And its very entertaining to watch I must say.
Are you on the wrong alt account? You criticized her idea earlier and now you are swooning over her.