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

Apr 25, 2009
8,517
9,896
830
Australia
Our money, our roads. I've heard this talk before "It's the price we pay for living in a society!", just the same ole mumbo jumbo.
Sorry, I don't follow. Whose money, whose roads?

To be clear, I think the tax the rich mantra is generally borne out of envy and incorrectly assumes that the rich have taken an unfair share of a fixed pie, rather than taking a share of a dynamically-sized pie proportional to the size they increased it by. I'm in favour of a flat personal income tax rate because it doesn't disincentivise risk and entrepreneurship and doesn't reward sloth via tax breaks for low income earners. Suggesting that all taxation is wrong is just silly though.
 

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
3,940
3,904
460
Again, some of the top American economists concluded that's the optimal tax rate. Why shouldn't it go back up?
Don't use appeal to authority to make your case. Especially with a soft science like economics. We also had (and still do have) top economists vouching for good ol' supply side Reaganomics even after it demonstratively was/is a failure.

I don't see how creating a 70% tax bracket for people making 10 million dollars per year is going to do raise much revenue or deal with wealth inequality though. People getting income of 10 million per year are just going to shuffle the deck so they don't get that much as income anymore and they will earn it through other means. We are again, talking about a tax proposal that will affect only about 2000 households in the US.

If you want to deal with wealth inequality you have to go after wealth, not income.
 
Sep 16, 2012
6,823
10
440
24
Don't use appeal to authority to make your case. Especially with a soft science like economics. We also had (and still do have) top economists vouching for good ol' supply side Reaganomics even after it demonstratively was/is a failure.

I don't see how creating a 70% tax bracket for people making 10 million dollars per year is going to do raise much revenue or deal with wealth inequality though. People getting income of 10 million per year are just going to shuffle the deck so they don't get that much as income anymore and they will earn it through other means. We are again, talking about a tax proposal that will affect only about 2000 households in the US.

If you want to deal with wealth inequality you have to go after wealth, not income.
Yeah we should do both. There's no reason that one policy precludes the other when it comes to dealing with extreme inequality. If we wanted to take the issue seriously there would have to be a number of transnational wealth taxes and repatriation of stashed assets so they can be taxed fairly
What you call appeal to authority a serious person would call a citation, there has to be an appeal to individuals producing actual volumes of thought on the subject otherwise we are just random people using whatever half baked knowledge we have on hand to support the conclusion we had in the first place.
For example whether or not the issue in question sees a broad academic consensus on what the optimal direction a policy should be is a different appeal to academia then "somebody who was recognized in the field said a thing".
 
Aug 30, 2018
509
788
230
Until the government can show fiscal displine and realign their priorties, it's foolish to think increasing taxes will result in anything more than additional waste. If anything, lower taxes significantly, cut services, and allow people to keep the fruits of their labor.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
She's making a huge political gamble that could devastate her party (on the national level) with these kinds of suggestions, because she garners so much media attention. Big money donors and tech giants that seemingly support "democratic-socialism" today, still take advantage of every tax break and loop hole they can find. They have yet to support the "democratic-socialist" platform when it posed a genuine and tangible risk to their bank accounts IMO. And I highly doubt they ever will considering there's an actual market for multi-million (even hundreds of millions) private yachts and private planes.

Risking the big money and tech companies support may seem noble to a young rep, but Nancy knows how dangerous that would be. She is well versed in how much messaging can swing the masses. Wouldn't surprise me at all if she is already planning who else to support when AOC faces her first primary as a sitting rep.
 
Last edited:
Feb 3, 2018
3,526
3,658
370
33
USA
I can't wait to watch the slow fall of AOC. She will eventually become everything she has railed against. She will take money from large PAC's, she will take money from large unions, she will bend the knee the the Democratic leadership. she will change her tune, quote me. She will become part of the machine she hates oh so much.

Or she will start a modeling career or acting or something based off her notoriety.

I'm looking forward to the drama queen that is AOC as political entertainment after Trump is gone.
 
Likes: jolof96
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
I can't wait to watch the slow fall of AOC. She will eventually become everything she has railed against. She will take money from large PAC's, she will take money from large unions, she will bend the knee the the Democratic leadership. she will change her tune, quote me. She will become part of the machine she hates oh so much.

Or she will start a modeling career or acting or something based off her notoriety.

I'm looking forward to the drama queen that is AOC as political entertainment after Trump is gone.
I'm betting on a sudden fall in her first primary, defeated from the shadows by the party elites. If she gets on board with Nancy she might be around a long time, but I don't see that happening because she is too ambitious. But one things for certain - she will be a paid talking head if she leaves in the next 6 years.
 
Likes: TrainedRage

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,235
706
1,135
Best Coast
I can't wait to watch the slow fall of AOC. She will eventually become everything she has railed against. She will take money from large PAC's, she will take money from large unions, she will bend the knee the the Democratic leadership. she will change her tune, quote me. She will become part of the machine she hates oh so much.

Or she will start a modeling career or acting or something based off her notoriety.

I'm looking forward to the drama queen that is AOC as political entertainment after Trump is gone.
Unlikely, in my analysis. Her principles and policy positions are her base of power and identity. Selling out wouldn't necessarily gain her much. We'll see though. Remind me in 6 years.
 
Likes: JareBear
Feb 3, 2018
3,526
3,658
370
33
USA
Unlikely, in my analysis. Her principles and policy positions are her base of power and identity. Selling out wouldn't necessarily gain her much. We'll see though. Remind me in 6 years.
Yeah I kind of agree. But look what people thought of Bernie. He was the socialist darling. But was dropped when people found out he had 3 mansions and a fraudulent university scam.
Now I doubt his chances, because he showed off his true capitalist self.

I have a feeling AOC will make some money and "sell out" for lack of a better word.
 
Apr 19, 2018
1,017
905
265
I don't see anything shocking here. If you make few milions a month then you should get taxed sky high.
Aside from country you already can buy whatever you want.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,235
706
1,135
Best Coast
Yeah I kind of agree. But look what people thought of Bernie. He was the socialist darling. But was dropped when people found out he had 3 mansions and a fraudulent university scam.
Now I doubt his chances, because he showed off his true capitalist self.
Uh, not really lol. Bernie is still the most popular politician in America.

He's also capitalist, of course. His politics is social democracy, which is still very much capitalist at its core.

Calling Bernie a socialist in the vein of the USSR, or China, or Venezuela, isn't accurate.
 
Feb 3, 2018
3,526
3,658
370
33
USA
Uh, not really lol. Bernie is still the most popular politician in America.

He's also capitalist, of course. His politics is social democracy, which is still very much capitalist at its core.

Calling Bernie a socialist in the vein of the USSR, or China, or Venezuela, isn't accurate.
He's a western socialist. IMO. I don't think he is nearly as popular as he was in early 2015-2016.
 
Jan 13, 2018
721
1,021
250
We're talking about taking 70% of income only for the dollars earned above $10 million PER YEAR. It wouldn't be 70% for the first $10 million annually, and that would only kick in on the next dollar after that.

I honestly think it's the only sensible policy a society can even have, and I also am convinced that conservatives would agree with me if they saw it face to face. At even $5 million annually, you have more money than you will ever need in your entire life. You can use money to just wipe your ass, or build a gold plated liter box for your cats with diamond encrusted kitty litter. It's just wasting money at that point to concentrate it in the hands of one person.

Then meanwhile, the other 90% of the population is struggling to even make it to a doctor, manage debt, marry at all or have children, or ever buy a house. Just basics of being alive are an insurmountable struggle for the majority of the people in the country.

Can you imagine how much ideology it takes to brainwash yourself into thinking taxing the wealthy at this rate is somehow unfair? Imagine watching a man hoard every possible luxury imaginable around him. Things he doesn't even use. Things that don't even matter. A 10th house. A 4th boat. A $5,000 haircut for their poodle. And meanwhile there are literally people that struggle their entire lives and never manage to save $5,000 ever, living paycheck to paycheck. And you're going to watch that asshole throwing money down the drain on things that don't even slightly matter; just the living embodiment of gluttony and excess waste, and you're going to pretend that it's smart for a society to not try and redistribute some of that for BASIC services for a struggling population? It's absolutely crazy.

This is how the government gets corrupt by the way. When you allow people to concentrate that much, with no limits, then no one will ever be able to challenge them ever. Their children will be born as royalty, and their money will just make money. They can buy politicians with ease. They can literally live above the law and do whatever they want. The income inequality levels are already past the levels they were in the Great Depression. If people actually saw how the top 1% live their lives, they would be appalled because average people literally cannot even imagine it.

It's basically telling people that you would rather watch someone die from lack of basic health care, or watch a child die so that someone can indulge in limitless gluttony. I guarantee that no one here actually thinks that in reality. We're talking about actual life and death. Say you are stranded on an island with no food, and one guy has enough food to feed himself for 1,000 years. And he just sits there and watches you die. That's where we're at in politics today.

No one making $10 million a year is going to have a hard time with anything. And if you think that people aren't going to rally in populist political movements to change this, you're mistaken. No one gives a fuck about gluttonous assholes while the country crumbles. If a politician ever manages to find a voice to express this to the people in an effective way, watch how fast this becomes a mainstream sentiment. It's common sense and common decency to support people if you have more money than you can even spend in your lifetime and others are watching their kids die and struggle without a chance to have a fair shot; with crumbling infrastructure, and Flint Michigan drinking poison water like a third world country.

I think it's great she is shooting for 70%. Maybe it gets negotiated down to 50%. Start high and fight for once. Then when you get through a diluted compromise it has something you actually want left in it.

Money concentrated into one person's hands doesn't really stimulate the economy either. They'll just sit on it or invest in China. Money broadly redistributed to help people go to college, or buy houses and start families is like rocket fuel for the economy.

You guys want to Make America Great Again? Why don't you tell me what the top bracket tax rates were during the best economic years of America after World War II when the middle class was created.
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2010
4,268
206
625
She's making a huge political gamble that could devastate her party (on the national level) with these kinds of suggestions, because she garners so much media attention. Big money donors and tech giants that seemingly support "democratic-socialism" today, still take advantage of every tax break and loop hole they can find. They have yet to support the "democratic-socialist" platform when it posed a genuine and tangible risk to their bank accounts IMO. And I highly doubt they ever will considering there's an actual market for multi-million (even hundreds of millions) private yachts and private planes.

Risking the big money and tech companies support may seem noble to a young rep, but Nancy knows how dangerous that would be. She is well versed in how much messaging can swing the masses. Wouldn't surprise me at all if she is already planning who else to support when AOC faces her first primary as a sitting rep.
Don't see it as a huge gamble. There's evidence to back her up, it's a popular idea, and it's not like people who make big money are streaming into the streets.

Bill Gates has paid over $10 billion in taxes—here’s why he says he should pay more

Warren Buffett: I ‘Should Be Paying A Lot More In Taxes’

Yeah, some people fund campaigns to continue trickle down economics. Sean Hannity might be unhappy. However, many people are fine/indifferent to not taking more than their fair share. Everyone can see the unrest that's bubbling up and know that these policies don't do what the Republican establishment says.

In truth, I think most of the people doing the leg work for more breaks are people who don't win big when taxes are cut. They're poor, middle class, or some steps below very rich/super rich. It's unfortunate that folks stick their head in the sand and believe making me better off will unleash growth or Bill Gates will leave the country if taxes go up after 50 years of cuts. After all the gov't has done for him he would renounce his citizenship just to not contribute anything and be greedy. Most people aren't wired like that.

Ultimately, I think Cortez is making the smart play. She's tipping a scale that's too biased towards a small group at the expense of everyone else. That's a smart play as long as she frames it right and keeps repeating her message to get it out there.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
Don't see it as a huge gamble. There's evidence to back her up, it's a popular idea, and it's not like people who make big money are streaming into the streets.

Bill Gates has paid over $10 billion in taxes—here’s why he says he should pay more

Warren Buffett: I ‘Should Be Paying A Lot More In Taxes’

Yeah, some people fund campaigns to continue trickle down economics. Sean Hannity might be unhappy. However, many people are fine/indifferent to not taking more than their fair share. Everyone can see the unrest that's bubbling up and know that these policies don't do what the Republican establishment says.

In truth, I think most of the people doing the leg work for more breaks are people who don't win big when taxes are cut. They're poor, middle class, or some steps below very rich/super rich. It's unfortunate that folks stick their head in the sand and believe making me better off will unleash growth or Bill Gates will leave the country if taxes go up after 50 years of cuts. After all the gov't has done for him he would renounce his citizenship just to not contribute anything and be greedy. Most people aren't wired like that.

Ultimately, I think Cortez is making the smart play. She's tipping a scale that's too biased towards a small group at the expense of everyone else. That's a smart play as long as she frames it right and keeps repeating her message to get it out there.
I'll believe the super rich donors really mean it when they start actually being forced to pay and smile about it. It's easy to say when there's no risk and you want virtue points. But the Dems recently controlled both houses and the White House, and they never moved forward with anything close to AOC's proposal. That says more to me than any statements made without risk.
 
Jun 26, 2018
840
565
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
Why don't you tell me what the top bracket tax rates were during the best economic years of America after World War II when the middle class was created.
That's a good point. They were insanely high. 90%+ on $100,000. And they continued to be high into the 60's. And government took in a lot more money. But what was the net effect of that? Did things become better because the government had more money? I'd wager things got much worse. Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is our problem. Stop giving them all the monies.
 
Apr 25, 2009
8,517
9,896
830
Australia
Wasn't there another big policy change in the 60s that essentially created the welfare state? :unsure:

Trying to distill the argument down to "well they did it in the 60s so it will work now" while ignoring the many other factors in play is just silly.
 
Jan 13, 2018
721
1,021
250
That's a good point. They were insanely high. 90%+ on $100,000. And they continued to be high into the 60's. And government took in a lot more money. But what was the net effect of that? Did things become better because the government had more money? I'd wager things got much worse. Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is our problem. Stop giving them all the monies.
Well the government is the only entity that is really appropriate for collection of top tax bracket excess to redistribute into basic services.

I am extremely sympathetic to the government waste argument though. I think economic liberals and libertarians could find a lot of common ground on many cuts. Like military contractors for one. But there's tons of wasteful spending. I just don't think the basic services that can really help people are part of that waste if it's done correctly. Access to college, health care, a modern infrastructure for our country. These things jump start the economy in a big way. Each person that is pulled out of poverty and into college is a potential asset to the country and will make purchases that help their communities.

I'll believe the super rich donors really mean it when they start actually being forced to pay and smile about it. It's easy to say when there's no risk and you want virtue points. But the Dems recently controlled both houses and the White House, and they never moved forward with anything close to AOC's proposal. That says more to me than any statements made without risk.
That's a completely fair point. "Bernie-wing" economic liberals are not the same as "Clinton-wing" neoliberals. Neoliberals control the DNC leadership and will never go for policies like this. DNC leadership is basically republican lite, which is why there's a war inside the democratic party for control after 2016 when Bernie got cheated by the DNC. Economic liberals will go for policies like this. They're two different political groups now.
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2010
4,268
206
625
I'll believe the super rich donors really mean it when they start actually being forced to pay and smile about it. It's easy to say when there's no risk and you want virtue points. But the Dems recently controlled both houses and the White House, and they never moved forward with anything close to AOC's proposal. That says more to me than any statements made without risk.

Have no idea if they're lying about how they would feel or if they just don't care all that much because they're set for life after years of prospering under a regressive system.

But a lot of people know what's going on is wrong and continuing down this path is a sure fire way to set off a powder keg. Big government is giving too many handouts to one group and being stingy with everyone else. It's recipe for disaster and doesn't unleash growth like the Republican elite wants you to believe.
 
Jan 11, 2016
800
315
240
Does anybody actually think it's fair that our top tax bracket maxes out at like $500,000, and that someone making $10,000,000 a year really ought to pay the same tax rate as someone making $500,000?

That just isn't the America we live in. There's a fraction of a percent of people who control most of the wealth of the country who aren't being taxed like it. That's the problem. It's not about raising taxes on you or anyone you've ever met, it's about raising money on the people for whom money is practically an infinite resource.
 
Likes: JareBear
Jan 7, 2014
3,687
2,016
390
Does anybody actually think it's fair that our top tax bracket maxes out at like $500,000, and that someone making $10,000,000 a year really ought to pay the same tax rate as someone making $500,000?

That just isn't the America we live in. There's a fraction of a percent of people who control most of the wealth of the country who aren't being taxed like it. That's the problem. It's not about raising taxes on you or anyone you've ever met, it's about raising money on the people for whom money is practically an infinite resource.
Taxes should be taken as a flat percentage for any monies earned beyond a fixed amount deemed necessary to live on. An example would be like 25% of all income over 50,000 for a single person without kids. It would be simple, fair, and effective though, so it will never happen.
 
Last edited:

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
3,940
3,904
460
Government is our problem
If government is the problem then the real problem is Americans. This I don't get about right wingers. You hate the government, but we live in a country that is literally a government by, for and of the people. America can't be exceptional if our people are the problem. But you guys are always patriotic too. You have the same cognitive dissonance that the SJW types have, and instead of being able to see your own problems you blame it on your own version of their straight white strawmen, the government.

So maybe Americans are just too inept to select good politicians, or we are too corrupt to select good politicians. Or maybe you don't think the government represents us anymore culturally/ethnically/etc. But complaining that our government is the problem overlooks who gives power to the government and forgets who ultimately is to blame for shitty governance.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Miku Miku
Jan 7, 2014
3,687
2,016
390
If government is the problem then the real problem is Americans. This I don't get about right wingers. You hate the government, but we live in a country that is literally a government by, for and of the people. America can't be exceptional if our people are the problem. But you guys are always patriotic too. You have the same cognitive dissonance that the SJW types have, and instead of being able to see your own problems you blame it on your own version of their straight white strawmen, the government.

So maybe Americans are just too inept to select good politicians, or we are too corrupt to select good politicians. Or maybe you don't think the government represents us anymore culturally/ethnically/etc. But complaining that our government is the problem overlooks who gives power to the government and forgets who ultimately is to blame for shitty governance.
Your argument is only true if you believe we truly have control over who our representatives are or if those representatives truly have any real power once they are there.
 

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
3,940
3,904
460
Your argument is only true if you believe we truly have control over who our representatives are or if those representatives truly have any real power once they are there.
We don't have control over who our representatives are? We don't have to vote for the R/D dichotomy. We keep on doing it though.
 
Jun 18, 2018
161
56
195
Flat tax rates were experimented with extensively a couple of decades ago in Eastern Europe, and the conclusions by economists was mixed. It didn’t do all the things envisioned and had some unforeseen consequences. The IMF gave up on it as a simple solution years ago.

Wealth tax is very hard to implement, the former French government tried to set one up but crashed and burned. It’s extremely hard to come up with wording that is both fair and effective, while taking into account all the tax planning options of the extremely rich.

Progressive income taxes are in no way perfect, but they seem like the best option of a bad bunch.
 
Jan 7, 2014
3,687
2,016
390
We don't have control over who our representatives are? We don't have to vote for the R/D dichotomy. We keep on doing it though.
Our whole system is flawed. Are there really choices outside of the two major parties? Are people educated enough to even understand who or what they are voting for? The whole thing is a glorified popularity contest akin to prom king/queen voting back in High School. Even if it wasn't so, are newly elected officials with new and fresh ideas able to influence policy change in any real manner or do they just become another cog in the machine maintaining the status quo?

This country will continue to spiral out of control barring some drastic reform.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
12,759
1,436
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Haha I wonder if the usual suspects will continue defending this fool because of her gender and race.
I am in favor of 70% top tax rate for incomes larger than a million per year. And I am a white male. So just ask anyone who agrees with Ocasio-Cortez whether they agree with me, as well. If they don't, then they probably discriminate against male white men :(.
 
Jan 11, 2016
800
315
240
Taxes should be taken as a flat percentage for any monies earned beyond a fixed amount deemed necessary to live on. An example would be like 25% of all income over 50,000 for a single person without kids. It would be simple, fair, and effective though, so it will never happen.
We don't do that because it's fucking terrible for the economy. Economics is based on the idea of wealth circulating. When it stagnates, it effectively leaves the economy and we lose that benefit.

If you put money in the hands of the working, middle, and upper middle classes, they save that money, it feeds into the economy, it builds business opportunities, and it works its way back up to job creators. It effectively multiplies. When you give it to wealthy people -- not small businesses, but genuinely wealthy people who have a huge surplus above and beyond business expenses -- it's going to accumulate in banks or in stock buybacks that artificially inflate the market and widen the wealth gap.

Yeah, a flat tax is clear, and simple to explain to idiots, but I'm not sure that benefit outweighs the economic harm it would do, which is why very few economists ever broach the subject. It's mostly wishful thinking on the part of the very few people who stand to benefit, and lay people that don't know any better repeating what the rich man said.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Aurelian
Jan 11, 2016
800
315
240
I am in favor of 70% top tax rate for incomes larger than a million per year. And I am a white male. So just ask anyone who agrees with Ocasio-Cortez whether they agree with me, as well. If they don't, then they probably discriminate against male white men :(.
I think you have brakets in between. For 1 million, maybe 41%, for 5 million, maybe 50%, and so on. It's just fucking stupid that the top braket is $like 450,000 or something.
 
Jun 26, 2018
840
565
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
If government is the problem then the real problem is Americans.
Quite the contrary.

But complaining that our government is the problem overlooks who gives power to the government and forgets who ultimately is to blame for shitty governance.
You're right. Liberal Democrat and leftists are the problem. They believe that government will solve their problems and give them what they need. That isn't the job of the government. Government doesn't create wealth or produce jobs. Nothing ever became better or more fair because the government got more money. Stop believing they exist to fix things. They won't.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
649
455
845
Ottawa, Canada
You're right. Liberal Democrat and leftists are the problem. They believe that government will solve their problems and give them what they need. That isn't the job of the government. Government doesn't create wealth or produce jobs. Nothing ever became better or more fair because the government got more money. Stop believing they exist to fix things. They won't.
That's a false, overly simplistic view of the left.

Liberalism at its core means believing that government has a role to play in improving society. The degree to which government gets involved varies widely. Sometimes it means strong involvement, such as believing that health care should be a right rather than a privilege of wealth, but other times it involves gentler nudges, like incentivizing renewable energy and electric cars.

Liberalism does not believe the government can or should provide everything. However, it does utterly reject the knee-jerk "government bad!" response, the Ayn Rand-inspired fantasy that the free market will always sort things out. As we've seen in the US, trusting solely in private industry in some fields can lead to some pretty horrific abuses, like people who have to choose between bankruptcy or death because their insurer 'conveniently' won't cover something.
 
Last edited:
Jan 11, 2016
800
315
240
You're right. Liberal Democrat and leftists are the problem. They believe that government will solve their problems and give them what they need. That isn't the job of the government. Government doesn't create wealth or produce jobs. Nothing ever became better or more fair because the government got more money. Stop believing they exist to fix things. They won't.
Private industry, left to its own devices, won't either. The notion that financial motives will always lead companies to do what's best for the public isn't just naive, it's demonstrably false.

This is why we invented capitalism, a system in which government tempers and balances the interests of private industry to maximize competition for capital. True capitalism requires government, and indeed a degree of socialist principle, in order to function, and history has proven as much.
 
Jun 26, 2018
840
565
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
True capitalism requires government, and indeed a degree of socialist principle, in order to function, and history has proven as much.
We've also seen that too much government hinders the free market. And that attempts to redistribute wealth through the government most oftentimes fail. Government could take a lesson from private industry and learn to operate efficiently and effectively.
 

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
3,940
3,904
460
We've also seen that too much government hinders the free market. And that attempts to redistribute wealth through the government most oftentimes fail. Government could take a lesson from private industry and learn to operate efficiently and effectively.
Have you ever worked in private industry? It is far from efficient and effective most of the time. Do you know why? People aren't efficient and effective quite often. Sure, in a small business, things can work better, but any large hierarchical organization suffers from the same inefficiencies you claim are unique to government.
 
Jun 26, 2018
840
565
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
Have you ever worked in private industry?
I have worked in both private industry and for government. The waste I saw in government would never happen in the private sector. Decisions get made by bureaucratic allies and not elected officials and nothing gets done compared to the work done in the private sector. Money is a great motivator.
 
May 17, 2018
2,373
1,141
280
A little waste is a good thing, what mean if your paying people and giving them a comfortable life. That usually makes them a good worker and loyal to the company.

They stay on call, come in during that blizzard or make extra sure to protect your company assets. Pouring more money into to your workers is not a bad thing.
 
Likes: Cybrwzrd
May 17, 2018
2,373
1,141
280
I'm fine with competitive pay, good benefits and plenty of paid holidays. But the government should waste as little taxpayer money as possible. Which means it should operate like a business.
There is difference between making sure workers have a good life and corruption. You should separate the two when you speak about this that way people might listen.

If you're talking about corruption, then sure Ben Carson doesn't need a 30,000 dining set. The treasury secretary doesn't need to use our military jets to fly for free all over world.

My point most of Congress and people who work in the capital make six figure salaries. While most of America makes around 30 grand year. We can balance that out a lot better.
 
Jan 5, 2019
85
111
155
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-1080874



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.

I don’t think anyone should pay much attention to what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says. I don’t think she knows much about anything, which would explain why someone who attended Boston College and allegedly graduated with a degree in International Relations ended up working in some Mexican restaurant bar at the age of 29.
 
Nov 23, 2010
4,268
206
625
Private industry, left to its own devices, won't either. The notion that financial motives will always lead companies to do what's best for the public isn't just naive, it's demonstrably false.
Exactly.

For example, if Americans had left it up to the market seniors would still be all over the country panhandling and rummaging through garbage for food.

That's what life used to be like for a whole lot of people prior to big government getting involved.

Businesses couldn't care less about you. They'll destroy the environment, abuse you like a slave, deny you health care or defraud you out of your home in order to line their pockets.
 
Last edited: