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

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
13,356
382
1,120
If I'm wealthy enough for a 70% tax rate I'm wealthy enough to take my wealth and my corporation to a different country. I probably have a significant portion of it already outside of the US.

I wonder what the plan will be then when you can't blame the wealthy and the corporate tax base has evaporated? Good luck paying for social security, welfare, medicaid and unemployment benefits then.
 
May 17, 2012
5,233
1,052
455
Canada
She would have to confiscate the entire lifetime accumulated wealth of all the billionaires in the US to pay for half a year of her policies. People pushing pie in the sky ideas should not be given such coverage unless it is to mock them. It is dangerous to promise unattainable things to garner votes because a large portion of the electorate are fucking dumb or wildly misinformed by hilariously dishonest media on both sides of the spectrum.

The wealthy already pay a huge share of your taxes. The poor do not. The collection of taxes is not the issue. The spending of that money is.
 
Sep 1, 2016
371
1
210
She would have to confiscate the entire lifetime accumulated wealth of all the billionaires in the US to pay for half a year of her policies. People pushing pie in the sky ideas should not be given such coverage unless it is to mock them. It is dangerous to promise unattainable things to garner votes because a large portion of the electorate are fucking dumb or wildly misinformed by hilariously dishonest media on both sides of the spectrum.

The wealthy already pay a huge share of your taxes. The poor do not. The collection of taxes is not the issue. The spending of that money is.
The top 3 billionaires have the same level of wealth as the bottom 3.5 BILLION people in this world. That should be a ‘pie in the sky’ ideal but that is the reality. Guaranteeing healthcare and education to those willing to work is not a pie in the sky idea at all. Somehow European countries can implement these policies for the last 2 million years but the US can’t? Isn’t the US supposed to be a wealthy developed country ? Lol.

The wealthy pay the majority of the tax because they are the ones who have accumulated all the wealth, haha. The majority of Americans live paycheque to paycheque but let’s just ignore that fact and keep funding corporate welfare and having tax dollars go on missiles, subs, and aircraft carriers!
 
Likes: DeafTourette
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
The top 3 billionaires have the same level of wealth as the bottom 3.5 BILLION people in this world. That should be a ‘pie in the sky’ ideal but that is the reality. Guaranteeing healthcare and education to those willing to work is not a pie in the sky idea at all. Somehow European countries can implement these policies for the last 2 million years but the US can’t? Isn’t the US supposed to be a wealthy developed country ? Lol.
And? Just because they have that much more doesn't mean they have enough to pay for everything. The answer to whether or not taxing the rich will be enough to pay for everything is to add up how much they have and determine whether or not that is enough. The answer isn't, "BUT THEY HAVE MORE THAN THESE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOTHING!" I don't know why that is so difficult to grasp.

Don't just tax them. Take it all. Take every penny of their net worth. That is still not enough to pay for this.
 
Oct 30, 2017
959
814
225
Even though she’s offensively stupid, evil and immoral, she’s a formidable threat because there are millions of dumb naive millennials with no real world experience whatsoever that have the “I read Karl Marx, now I know everything and how the world works, I can see clearly in 4D matrix” mindset that will keep voting for her and her ilk.
 
Nov 5, 2016
5,201
4,120
285
I don't care where (just far)
Even though she’s offensively stupid, evil and immoral, she’s a formidable threat because there are millions of dumb naive millennials with no real world experience whatsoever that have the “I read Karl Marx, now I know everything and how the world works, I can see clearly in 4D matrix” mindset that will keep voting for her and her ilk.
It’s just amazing how right you are about everything. Every line of what you wrote is one hundred percent accurate, indisputable, above reproach, fair, self-aware, and no doubt as objective as humanly possible.
 
Likes: lethial
Oct 10, 2018
1,281
407
215
www.kickstarter.com
people that repeat the "the rich should be taxed 70% or more" are the same people that want "$20 minimum wage" these people dont know how economics work. Thats why they can't create a visualization that shows what the results would be.

The "middle class" is worse now then they we're before in disposable income 30 years ago. Not many put back in, not many are putting money in ideas and investment, not many are creating businesses, etc.

So if you cut 70% of those that make over $150k a year, the real range some of these bill proposals go to, not just billionaires like the media misleads, who's going to pick up the slack of the middle class?

Magic?
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,760
1,757
240
people that repeat the "the rich should be taxed 70% or more" are the same people that want "$20 minimum wage" these people dont know how economics work.
Yep and the same people demanding minimum wage are the same people that dont want a wall, preach "muh world has no borders", downright support immigration illegal or not and vote democrat who are dependent on immigration for political success. Yeah tell me about your minimum wage fantasies as businesses have a huge pool of cheap labor they can pick from. smh
 
Last edited:

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,070
470
430
Reading, Berkshire
You could have no illegal aliens and your minimum wage wouldn't increase. People who are above minimum wage don't want it increased because it devalues their meager salary (instead of realising they're underpaid...). Corporations definitely don't minimum wage increased because employees are expenses, and you need to keep those as low as possible.

She would have to confiscate the entire lifetime accumulated wealth of all the billionaires in the US to pay for half a year of her policies. People pushing pie in the sky ideas should not be given such coverage unless it is to mock them. It is dangerous to promise unattainable things to garner votes because a large portion of the electorate are fucking dumb or wildly misinformed by hilariously dishonest media on both sides of the spectrum.

The wealthy already pay a huge share of your taxes. The poor do not. The collection of taxes is not the issue. The spending of that money is.
Yea that's kinda modern politics.
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
You could have no illegal aliens and your minimum wage wouldn't increase. People who are above minimum wage don't want it increased because it devalues their meager salary (instead of realising they're underpaid...). Corporations definitely don't minimum wage increased because employees are expenses, and you need to keep those as low as possible.
They don't mind minimum wage increases at all. Wal-Mart lobbies for them. It's a cheap form of protectionism against smaller competitors. Same with overregulation.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
They don't mind minimum wage increases at all. Wal-Mart lobbies for them. It's a cheap form of protectionism against smaller competitors. Same with overregulation.
Well that's strategic, and bottomlined the same way that Amazon got rid of their bonus payouts to associates, but raised their min wage.

In general businesses don't like higher min wage from regulation even if they pay over it. It reduces flexibility.
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
Well that's strategic, and bottomlined the same way that Amazon got rid of their bonus payouts to associates, but raised their min wage.

In general businesses don't like higher min wage from regulation even if they pay over it. It reduces flexibility.
Well, yeah. Everything any of them do is strategic. My understanding was that the bonus payouts that Amazon cut amount to about half of the pay increase, though. The increase that Wal-Mart implemented after the tax cut was a straight increase with no downside.

I was referring to Wal-Mart lobbying for an increase in the federal minimum wage, though. And Costco lobbied for an increase to $10.xx back when their minimum was $11. Large corps are obviously better positioned to absorb any regulatory costs and when Bernie goes after Wal-Mart, they're more than happy to say, "let's raise wages everywhere."

I was responding to, "corporations definitely don't want a minimum wage increase." It's never that cut and dry.
 
Likes: ssolitare

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
3,792
3,494
460

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
3,792
3,494
460
Some things are widely reported.

You just have to pay more attention to the terrifying MSM.
And yet in this thread I actually support tax increases, but instead you act like a jackass. This is why no one likes people like you. You think you are smarter and better than other people and never listen to what they have to say.

Even though you and I may share similar economic beliefs, I can interact with people on the other side of the aisle because I can listen and respect them, you on the other hand are too fragile to even listen to people who agree with you.
 
Likes: matt404au

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,234
1,176
340
Moore Park Beach
And yet in this thread I actually support tax increases, but instead you act like a jackass. This is why no one likes people like you. You think you are smarter and better than other people and never listen to what they have to say.

Even though you and I may share similar economic beliefs, I can interact with people on the other side of the aisle because I can listen and respect them, you on the other hand are too fragile to even listen to people who agree with you.
That is the far alt-left today. No compromise, no dialogue. You are either with them or Hitler. And they probably think you are Hitler. /s

That said, higher income taxes for people making >10m$/year annualy. That is about 2000 people. From an economic view it is meaningless since there are so few people affected that it is not meaningful money. Even if you bring the marginal tax rate to 100%. All in all, optimistically it will contribute an extra that is just a tiny rounding error.
Or, what it might do however is that it will drive these people to start to do better tax planning/avoidance schemes and then you actually rise the tax but you collect less :-( Sad panda.

But anyway this is still just pocket change that does not fund anything at all. It is just playing for the audience and getting the populist vote.


To get anything meaningful, you may need to start taxing wealth, not income, and capital gains. That is where the money is.

Myself, I consider anyone that thinks that increasing payroll tax for the rich, or me, to be idiots. It will not grow tax revenue.
Almost everyone that is wealthy gets the majority of their moneys from things that are NOT payroll.
You could increase the payroll tax for the middle class, but the middle class has been virtually destroyed in the last 10-20 years. Thanks Obama and Bush.

AOC is either a populist or she is an idiot. Anyone that thinks this is an idea that will bring meaningful tax revenue is ether a populist or idio^D^D^Dgnorant of economic matters.


Yey, tax hike might actually be a good idea. But it is not the payroll/income tax that needs to be upped.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
That is the far alt-left today. No compromise, no dialogue. You are either with them or Hitler. And they probably think you are Hitler. /s

That said, higher income taxes for people making >10m$/year annualy. That is about 2000 people. From an economic view it is meaningless since there are so few people affected that it is not meaningful money. Even if you bring the marginal tax rate to 100%. All in all, optimistically it will contribute an extra that is just a tiny rounding error.
Or, what it might do however is that it will drive these people to start to do better tax planning/avoidance schemes and then you actually rise the tax but you collect less :-( Sad panda.

But anyway this is still just pocket change that does fund anything at all. It is just playing for the audience and getting the populist vote.


To get anything meaningful, you may need to start taxing wealth, not income, and capital gains. That is where the money is.

Myself, I consider anyone that thinks that increasing payroll tax for the rich, or me, to be idiots. It will not grow tax revenue.
Almost everyone that is wealthy gets the majority of their moneys from things that are NOT payroll.
You could increase the payroll tax for the middle class, but the middle class has been virtually destroyed in the last 10-20 years. Thanks Obama and Bush.

AOC is either a populist or she is an idiot. Anyone that thinks this is an idea that will bring meaningful tax revenue is ether a populist or idio^D^D^Dgnorant of economic matters.
Well, they don’t call her Occasional Cortex for nothin’.
 

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
3,792
3,494
460
That is the far alt-left today. No compromise, no dialogue. You are either with them or Hitler. And they probably think you are Hitler. /s

That said, higher income taxes for people making >10m$/year annualy. That is about 2000 people. From an economic view it is meaningless since there are so few people affected that it is not meaningful money. Even if you bring the marginal tax rate to 100%. All in all, optimistically it will contribute an extra that is just a tiny rounding error.
Or, what it might do however is that it will drive these people to start to do better tax planning/avoidance schemes and then you actually rise the tax but you collect less :-( Sad panda.

But anyway this is still just pocket change that does not fund anything at all. It is just playing for the audience and getting the populist vote.


To get anything meaningful, you may need to start taxing wealth, not income, and capital gains. That is where the money is.

Myself, I consider anyone that thinks that increasing payroll tax for the rich, or me, to be idiots. It will not grow tax revenue.
Almost everyone that is wealthy gets the majority of their moneys from things that are NOT payroll.
You could increase the payroll tax for the middle class, but the middle class has been virtually destroyed in the last 10-20 years. Thanks Obama and Bush.

AOC is either a populist or she is an idiot. Anyone that thinks this is an idea that will bring meaningful tax revenue is ether a populist or idio^D^D^Dgnorant of economic matters.


Yey, tax hike might actually be a good idea. But it is not the payroll/income tax that needs to be upped.
Which in summary is exactly what I said earlier in the thread.
 
Sep 1, 2016
371
1
210
And? Just because they have that much more doesn't mean they have enough to pay for everything. The answer to whether or not taxing the rich will be enough to pay for everything is to add up how much they have and determine whether or not that is enough. The answer isn't, "BUT THEY HAVE MORE THAN THESE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOTHING!" I don't know why that is so difficult to grasp.

Don't just tax them. Take it all. Take every penny of their net worth. That is still not enough to pay for this.
What? With regards to funding Medicare for all, even the right wing Koch study showed it would save net two trillion dollars over a ten year period. Other studies show up to six trillion net saving over a ten year period.

Taxes wouldn’t go up just for the rich but taxes would also go up for everyone, and it would net save them money. Private health insurance is basically a corporate tax. You have to have it. Doing healthcare more efficiently like European countries would eradicate the inefficiencies and money wastage on profit/bonuses. Removing this profit motive results in much cheaper care, that’s only logical.

I don’t get why having healthcare is such a tricky subject for some Americans. Stop acting like it can’t be paid for. We have left and right wing studies to show it can, and a plethora of civilised European countries that already have these issues taken care of decades ago. If your tax priorities are non-stop spending on military weapons, droning innocent civilians, and an ever-increasing fleet of aircraft carriers when thousands of Americans are dying from lack of access to healthcare and paying through the roof premiums, that says a lot about you.
 

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
3,792
3,494
460
Maybe all those taxes could help out with the state of our school systems?
Like with everything else in the US, we throw more money at the problem and see no improvements because that money ends up going to bureaucracy and not being spent on infrastructure improvements or teachers. Also, those doing the teaching were also educated in in said school systems and thus, it is a chicken or egg scenario. And there is that whole unspoken cultural divide that exist between the races in America, so education is generally excellent in areas with a with primarily whites and asians, and not so great in other areas.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,234
1,176
340
Moore Park Beach
lol @ all the poor ppl cucking to billionaires.
Come one, you either can not read or you misunderstand what people write deliberately.

The proposal is silly and will not generate meaningful tax revenue because billionaires in general just do not earn all that much money at all.
Chances are very good that YOU earn more than the average billionaire.

Jeff Bezos. Richest man in the world. Could he pay more in tax? Probably.
He earns ~40k / year. This tax would not affect him at all.

George Soros. Billionaire too. He earns 1$ / year. No tax revenue there either.

Bill Gates. I don't think he works at all so I think his personal income is 0$ / year. Again he is not affected by this tax.


So criticizing a tax that will never apply to Billionaires is cucking to Billionaires? Amazing.
 
May 19, 2010
1,974
146
565
If I'm wealthy enough for a 70% tax rate I'm wealthy enough to take my wealth and my corporation to a different country. I probably have a significant portion of it already outside of the US.

I wonder what the plan will be then when you can't blame the wealthy and the corporate tax base has evaporated? Good luck paying for social security, welfare, medicaid and unemployment benefits then.
So let's tax them and find out :]
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
What? With regards to funding Medicare for all, even the right wing Koch study showed it would save net two trillion dollars over a ten year period. Other studies show up to six trillion net saving over a ten year period.

Taxes wouldn’t go up just for the rich but taxes would also go up for everyone, and it would net save them money. Private health insurance is basically a corporate tax. You have to have it. Doing healthcare more efficiently like European countries would eradicate the inefficiencies and money wastage on profit/bonuses. Removing this profit motive results in much cheaper care, that’s only logical.

I don’t get why having healthcare is such a tricky subject for some Americans. Stop acting like it can’t be paid for. We have left and right wing studies to show it can, and a plethora of civilised European countries that already have these issues taken care of decades ago. If your tax priorities are non-stop spending on military weapons, droning innocent civilians, and an ever-increasing fleet of aircraft carriers when thousands of Americans are dying from lack of access to healthcare and paying through the roof premiums, that says a lot about you.
Well, gee. Why didn't I recognize that this post

The top 3 billionaires have the same level of wealth as the bottom 3.5 BILLION people in this world. That should be a ‘pie in the sky’ ideal but that is the reality. Guaranteeing healthcare and education to those willing to work is not a pie in the sky idea at all. Somehow European countries can implement these policies for the last 2 million years but the US can’t? Isn’t the US supposed to be a wealthy developed country ? Lol.

The wealthy pay the majority of the tax because they are the ones who have accumulated all the wealth, haha. The majority of Americans live paycheque to paycheque but let’s just ignore that fact and keep funding corporate welfare and having tax dollars go on missiles, subs, and aircraft carriers!
which happens to be in a thread about raising taxes on the wealthy, specifically, was about something else altogether.

The Cost of 'Medicare-for-All'

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic nominee for New York’s 14th Congressional District seat, are pointing to a study they say shows “Medicare-for-all” would save Americans money. But the author says their comments “appear to reflect a misunderstanding of my study.”

The study is based on the language of a “Medicare-for-all” bill proposed by Sanders last year that makes assumptions about reduced administrative and drug costs, as well as deeply reduced reimbursement rates to health care providers under a universal health care system. But the study’s author believes those assumptions about savings are unrealistic.

Our fact-checking colleagues at the Washington Post first wrote about this when, on July 30, Sanders tweeted, “Thank you, Koch brothers, for accidentally making the case for Medicare for All!”

In the accompanying video, Sanders says, “Let me thank the Koch brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.”

Ocasio-Cortez referenced the same study when asked by CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Aug. 8 about the cost of “Medicare-for-all.”

“First of all, the thing we need to realize is people talk about the sticker shock of Medicare-for-all. They do not talk about the sticker shock of our existing system,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “You know in a Koch brothers-funded study – if any study is going to try to be a little bit slanted it would be one funded by the Koch brothers – it shows that Medicare-for-all is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.”
The Study
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are referring to a working paper, “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The Mercatus Center gets some of its funding from the libertarian Koch brothers, but more about that later.

The author of the paper, Charles Blahous, a senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center who once was the deputy director of President Bush’s National Economic Council, says the two proponents of a universal health care system are distorting the findings of his paper.

The study looked at the impact of the Medicare for All Act introduced by Sanders on Sept. 13, 2017. The bill, which has 16 Democratic cosponsors, would expand Medicare into a universal health insurance program, phased in over four years. (The bill hasn’t gone anywhere in a Republican-controlled Senate.)

The top line of the paper’s abstract says that the bill “would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation.” According to the paper, even doubling all “currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.”

But Sanders’ spokesman, Josh Miller-Lewis, told us that presenting only the additional governmental cost of Medicare-for-all — “the scary $32 trillion figure” — leaves out the larger context. Of course the government would spend more on health care under a Medicare-for-all system, he said, but the idea is that it would result in less spending on healthcare in the U.S. overall.

Miller-Lewis referred to figures not highlighted in the report that show that between 2022 and 2031, the currently projected cost of health care expenditures in the U.S. of $59.4 trillion would dip to $57.6 trillion under the “Medicare-for-all” plan. That’s how Sanders arrives at his claim that the study “shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10 year period.” (See Table 2.)
The Assumptions
In an email to FactCheck.org, Blahous said he didn’t highlight that figure because he doesn’t think it’s realistic.

As Blahous wrote in the fourth sentence of his abstract, “It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that health care providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”

Blahous used the text of Sanders’ bill to guide assumptions. For example, he said, the bill says health care providers will be reimbursed for patients at Medicare payment rates. Blahous said Medicare payment rates are projected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to be roughly 40 percent lower than those paid by private insurers, so he built those assumed savings into his estimate.

But in the report, Blahous cautions that the assumption is suspect.
Blahous, July 2018: t is not precisely predictable how hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare providers would respond to a dramatic reduction in their reimbursements under M4A, well below their costs of care for all categories of patients combined. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary has projected that even upholding current-law reimbursement rates for treating Medicare beneficiaries alone would cause nearly half of all hospitals to have negative total facility margins by 2040. The same study found that by 2019, over 80 percent of hospitals will lose money treating Medicare patients — a situation M4A would extend, to a first approximation, to all US patients. Perhaps some facilities and physicians would be able to generate heretofore unachieved cost savings that would enable their continued functioning without significant disruptions. However, at least some undoubtedly would not, thereby reducing the supply of healthcare services at the same time M4A sharply increases healthcare demand. It is impossible to say precisely how much the confluence of these factors would reduce individuals’ timely access to healthcare services, but some such access problems almost certainly must arise.

Anticipating these difficulties, some other studies have assumed that M4A payment rates must exceed current-law Medicare payment rates to avoid sending facilities into deficit on average or to avoid triggering unacceptable reductions in the provision and quality of healthcare services. These alternative payment rate assumptions substantially increase the total projected costs of M4A.


Or, as Blahous told us via email, achieving a 40 percent reduction in reimbursement rates is an “unlikely outcome” and “actual costs are likely to be substantially greater.”

“To argue that we can get to that level of savings by getting rid of the health insurance middleman is inconsistent with my study,” Blahous said. “To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number specifically, one would have to argue that we can make those 40 percent cuts to providers at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent, without triggering disruptions of access to care that lawmakers and the public find unacceptable.”

The report similarly uses assumptions in the Sanders bill about savings on administrative costs and on the cost of prescription drugs. Blahous describes these assumptions as “aggressive” and his report includes arguments that suggest they are unlikely.

Said Blahous: “If you ask somebody ‘How much would something cost?’ and if they responded with, ‘Well, if you assume X the cost would be Y, but that’s an unrealistic assumption, actual costs would be higher’ – it’s not accurate to say ‘He says the cost is Y!’ When I wrote that ‘actual costs’ would be higher, I meant it. And I haven’t simply said that in response to comments like the candidate’s – I had previously put it front and center on the study itself.”

In his report, Blahous provided an alternative-scenario estimate, one that assumed instead that payments to health care providers would “remain equal on average to the current-law blend of higher private and lower public reimbursement rates.” Under that scenario, there would be a net increase in health care spending.

Sanders’ spokesman, Miller-Lewis, argues that the initial assumptions used in the report — the ones based on Sanders’ Medicare for All Act — are legitimate.

The buying power associated with a system that represents all Americans would allow the government to negotiate significant savings in payments to health care providers, as well as on drug prices, Miller-Lewis said.

“The whole point of universal health care is that you’ll get these cost-savings,” he said.

“It’s done everywhere in the world,” he said. “I don’t think we’re making any wrong assumptions.”

There is a certain amount of guesswork in estimating the cost of something as complicated as the health care system, and all of those estimates rely on a multitude of assumptions. We’re not suggesting the assumptions made in the Sanders bill are wrong, only that they aren’t Blahous’ assumptions.

“Proponents are perfectly free to argue for those provider cuts and to say that THEY believe M4A will therefore lower national health spending, — and also to cite whatever data they want in support of their arguments, from any study they find credible,” Blahous told us. “What they shouldn’t say is that I also reached that conclusion, because that’s incorrect. That finding should not be attributed to me or to my study.”
Koch Brothers’ Connection
Both Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez referred to the Mercatus Center report as a “Koch brothers-funded study.” They are referring, of course, to the billionaire brothers, Charles and David Koch, who spend hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Republican candidates that support their conservative/libertarian agenda.

The Koch brothers have donated millions of dollars to George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, and Charles Koch sits on the center’s board of directors.

Documents published earlier this year show the Koch brothers, at one point at least, used their donations to gain influence over the hiring and firing of professors at the Mercatus Center. An Associated Press story about the donor agreement with the school noted, “The Koch Foundation issued a statement saying the agreements with Mason are ‘old and inactive’ and that newer agreements contain no such provisions.”

Blahous told us his work is not influenced by any donors to the Mercatus Center.

“All I’d say is that my research is totally my own,” Blahous said. “It’s academic research, it goes through a blind review process, and it represents my own work. I choose my own research subjects and follow the facts where they lead. You’d have to ask someone else about where funding comes from, I don’t follow that and it doesn’t affect me.”

We take no position on “Medicare-for-all” and we can’t say if Blahous’ study is or is not influenced by donors to the Mercatus Center. But we can say that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are misrepresenting the study’s conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Sep 1, 2016
371
1
210
Well, gee. Why didn't I recognize that this post



which happens to be in a thread about raising taxes on the wealthy, specifically, was about something else altogether.
You’re acting like small progresses in taxing policy such as these won’t help anything. So far in this thread I haven’t seen anyone coming up with a good argument as to why a marginal 70% tax above 10 million dollars is a bad thing. The wealth tax, increases in capital gains tax, and more are more than necessary in the US. The US’ wealth gap is worse than imperial Europe. Wealth inequality could be the biggest issue we face in the 21st century.

Tell me, do you back Medicare for all or any policies that would help the poor? Or can we just not afford any of those? And tell me what tax proposals you suggest to narrow the wealth and income disparities?
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
You’re acting like small progresses in taxing policy such as these won’t help anything. So far in this thread I haven’t seen anyone coming up with a good argument as to why a marginal 70% tax above 10 million dollars is a bad thing. The wealth tax, increases in capital gains tax, and more are more than necessary in the US. The US’ wealth gap is worse than imperial Europe. Wealth inequality could be the biggest issue we face in the 21st century.

Tell me, do you back Medicare for all or any policies that would help the poor? Or can we just not afford any of those? And tell me what tax proposals you suggest to narrow the wealth and income disparities?
Medicare for all? No.
Policies that would help the poor. Of course. We are clearly never going to agree on the general nature of those policies, though.
The wealth gap isn't an issue.