You go Girl! Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Plans Bill to Boost Top Individual Tax Rate to 59%

[Winco]

As Mario Cuomo said, Reagan made it acceptable to blame the poor. It's disgusting the way you can ignore the fact that the entire country is so unequal and there are so many $7 jobs it's ridiculous with no benefits. The economy has gotten so unfair and you believe people just got lazy. Absolutely ridiculous. All to save the greedy idiot GOP Rich from paying their fair share.

Income inequality will destroy us.

 

[Andylusion]

The rich fucks scream "theft", so don´t just take 59 %, take it all, leave a food stamp.

If the federal tax rate was 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the federal tax rate was 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to create wealth?

Then don´t scream "theft" while the hard working people pay up.

That's our point though. Every time you try and tax the rich, you end up taxing the poor. So *YOU* don't scream theft, when *YOU* end up paying the bill.

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated. But I think that the whole story is a hoax. You know US law? You have to pay up anyway, no matter where you got to. They´d have to give up on their citizenship. Also, not every rich is this unpatriotic.

But it is true. It's a statistical, historical fact.

The effective tax rate on the top 1%, isn't much different today, than it was in the 70s or 50s, when tax rates were double what they are today.

What that means is that the share of the tax burden has fallen more on the poor, than the rich, in the past.

The poorest 50% of tax payers (that would include the middle class, are paying less of the tax burden today, than they did in the 1970s with the 70% top marginal rate. Equally the top 1% are paying more of the tax burden today, than they did when the top marginal rate was 70%.

This isn't theory.... it is flat out statistical, undeniable, documented fact.

if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Again... that has been tried. They tried it in Venezuela. The rich packed up and left, and the government confiscated their wealth.

What you people don't seem to understand, is that it is the rich people themselves, that know how to make assets have value. That is in fact, exactly why they are wealthy.

Farms that produced enough food to feed the country, and export the surplus food.... were confiscated. The wealthy farm owners left the country. The farms stopped producing food, because shockingly peasants and poor people... don't know how to farm, and nether do the government bureaucrats.

Now they have mass starvation. What makes the assets have value is that someone knows how to make them produce value. You ditch the people who have the money and knowledge to make it work, and it doesn't work. A highly valuable farm, is now worthless.

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

You seem to be operating under the impression that wealth is static. Wealth is not static.

I worked at a Cadillac dealer. We had a poor guy that had been given a car. He wasn't super poor, but he didn't earn enough to own a Cadillac. In order to save money, he gave the car to a no-name mechanic shop, which pulled the motor apart (it needed a timing belt), and when they did that, they broke the engine block.

Expensive car, now a junk yard master piece. The value of the car changed. It wasn't worth, what it was before, when it was owned and could be maintained by a wealthy person.

This idea that you are just going to confiscate their stuff, and keep the wealth... that's not how the world works.

When Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil fields that Exxon was developing, it didn't make the government wealthy... it made the oil fields worthless. The government didn't have the equipment, nor the expertise to develop those oil fields... so they simply didn't get developed.

You know how much an oil field you can't pump oil from, is worth? Nothing.

And here's the thing.... did it hurt Exxon? In the short term, yes because they lost the money they put into those oil fields... .but in the long term it didn't hurt Exxon at all. They simply bought new equipment, and sent their skilled and knowledgeable people elsewhere in the world, and made money there, and developed oil fields there, and paid taxes in those countries, instead of Venezuela.

In the long term, Venezuela lost everything, and Exxon gained, just elsewhere.

Driving out these people, is going to be a net loss to everyone, except for the rich people.

Go back to Cuba even. The wealthy sugar plantations owners were driven out. The result wasn't that they got rich off the sugar fields. In fact, all the harvests declined after that, and Cuba became impoverished.

Meanwhile the wealthy plantation owners, simply left the country, and started businesses elsewhere, and most became wealthy again... just now they didn't benefit the poor Cubans left behind.

Your system, doesn't work. Never has in the past, and never will in the future.

 

[Bleipriester]

The rich fucks scream "theft", so don´t just take 59 %, take it all, leave a food stamp.

If the federal tax rate was 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the federal tax rate was 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to create wealth?

Then don´t scream "theft" while the hard working people pay up.

That's our point though. Every time you try and tax the rich, you end up taxing the poor. So *YOU* don't scream theft, when *YOU* end up paying the bill.

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated. But I think that the whole story is a hoax. You know US law? You have to pay up anyway, no matter where you got to. They´d have to give up on their citizenship. Also, not every rich is this unpatriotic.

But it is true. It's a statistical, historical fact.

View attachment 290063
The effective tax rate on the top 1%, isn't much different today, than it was in the 70s or 50s, when tax rates were double what they are today.

What that means is that the share of the tax burden has fallen more on the poor, than the rich, in the past.

View attachment 290064

The poorest 50% of tax payers (that would include the middle class, are paying less of the tax burden today, than they did in the 1970s with the 70% top marginal rate. Equally the top 1% are paying more of the tax burden today, than they did when the top marginal rate was 70%.

This isn't theory.... it is flat out statistical, undeniable, documented fact.

if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Again... that has been tried. They tried it in Venezuela. The rich packed up and left, and the government confiscated their wealth.

What you people don't seem to understand, is that it is the rich people themselves, that know how to make assets have value. That is in fact, exactly why they are wealthy.

Farms that produced enough food to feed the country, and export the surplus food.... were confiscated. The wealthy farm owners left the country. The farms stopped producing food, because shockingly peasants and poor people... don't know how to farm, and nether do the government bureaucrats.

Now they have mass starvation. What makes the assets have value is that someone knows how to make them produce value. You ditch the people who have the money and knowledge to make it work, and it doesn't work. A highly valuable farm, is now worthless.

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

You seem to be operating under the impression that wealth is static. Wealth is not static.

I worked at a Cadillac dealer. We had a poor guy that had been given a car. He wasn't super poor, but he didn't earn enough to own a Cadillac. In order to save money, he gave the car to a no-name mechanic shop, which pulled the motor apart (it needed a timing belt), and when they did that, they broke the engine block.

Expensive car, now a junk yard master piece. The value of the car changed. It wasn't worth, what it was before, when it was owned and could be maintained by a wealthy person.

This idea that you are just going to confiscate their stuff, and keep the wealth... that's not how the world works.

When Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil fields that Exxon was developing, it didn't make the government wealthy... it made the oil fields worthless. The government didn't have the equipment, nor the expertise to develop those oil fields... so they simply didn't get developed.

You know how much an oil field you can't pump oil from, is worth? Nothing.

And here's the thing.... did it hurt Exxon? In the short term, yes because they lost the money they put into those oil fields... .but in the long term it didn't hurt Exxon at all. They simply bought new equipment, and sent their skilled and knowledgeable people elsewhere in the world, and made money there, and developed oil fields there, and paid taxes in those countries, instead of Venezuela.

In the long term, Venezuela lost everything, and Exxon gained, just elsewhere.

Driving out these people, is going to be a net loss to everyone, except for the rich people.

Go back to Cuba even. The wealthy sugar plantations owners were driven out. The result wasn't that they got rich off the sugar fields. In fact, all the harvests declined after that, and Cuba became impoverished.

Meanwhile the wealthy plantation owners, simply left the country, and started businesses elsewhere, and most became wealthy again... just now they didn't benefit the poor Cubans left behind.

Your system, doesn't work. Never has in the past, and never will in the future.

That doesn´t speak in favor of the rich. It only proofs that they sponge up all the money.

 

[Winco]

The more you make the more you spend, you know that right?

But not as a percentage. You know that right?

Is that why the Ultra Rich cheat taxes and pump money into offshore accounts?
So they can SPEND it. lol.

If the Ultra Rich actually spent their money or put it back into circulation in ANY way, I would be in agreement.
But they don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The more you make the more you spend, you know that right?

But not as a percentage. You know that right?

Is that why the Ultra Rich cheat taxes and pump money into offshore accounts?
So they can SPEND it. lol.

If the Ultra Rich actually spent their money or put it back into circulation in ANY way, I would be in agreement.
But they don't.

And you know this how...........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As Mario Cuomo said, Reagan made it acceptable to blame the poor. It's disgusting the way you can ignore the fact that the entire country is so unequal and there are so many $7 jobs it's ridiculous with no benefits. The economy has gotten so unfair and you believe people just got lazy. Absolutely ridiculous. All to save the greedy idiot GOP Rich from paying their fair share.

Income inequality will destroy us.

So what do you want to do about it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

As Mario Cuomo said, Reagan made it acceptable to blame the poor. It's disgusting the way you can ignore the fact that the entire country is so unequal and there are so many $7 jobs it's ridiculous with no benefits. The economy has gotten so unfair and you believe people just got lazy. Absolutely ridiculous. All to save the greedy idiot GOP Rich from paying their fair share.

Income inequality will destroy us.

I agree, so what's the answer? People with huge money are fleeing California and buying up cheap land in places like Idaho and destroying it

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Hitler would have been so proud of you.

If we took all the poor in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would they never be missed, it would benefit society greatly.

If we took all the rich in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country would collapse.

Next time you need a job, ask a homeless man for one.

Hitler was funded by the private companies. He maintained market economy. No idea where you have your nonsense from.
And without the rich the poor would not be poor. People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

My reference was to your Nazi comment we should remove Americans from the country and take their money like an authoritarian state.

The only people responsible for the poor are the poor themselves. Rich people don't make poor people. And if we took every dime away from rich people today, it won't help the poor one bit.

It reminds me of when I was a child in the 60's, and we were driving through a poor part of town. As I looked on, I told my father I wished I had a million dollars, because I would give it to those people so they didn't have to live that way. My father smiled at my comment and said "Son, you could give each and every one of these people a million dollars, and given enough time, they will be right back here again."

Not everybody is capable of managing money. Books have been written about lottery winners and how the money ruined their lives, and put them in massive debt. I've seen companies close down because the owner handed the business to his kid or kids, and they just spent the money and ran it to the ground.

Vast generalizing of the poor. They simply have no money to manage. In fact, you didn´t get robbed and killed during your journey through the poor quarter.
And for my "Nazi comment" you ignore the following. In the beginning there wasn´t rich and poor, there was aristocracy and populace. So rich and poor were pre-defined. Without modern day governments I would be nothing more than a fucking slave. I am not the slave type, I would kill my "employer" or die trying.

Yes, that is generalizing the poor, because it's the truth.

Poverty is the situation of having little or no money. The solution to poverty is money. So how does one get money? They work.

Is work alone the solution to poverty? Of course not, it's what you do with the money you earn that helps keep you out of poverty. If you have a newer automobiles, the latest iPhone, 300 cable or satellite television channels, the highest speed internet, these are all non-necessities. You choose to spend your money on these items. If you rent an apartment that requires three paychecks to live in, what you need to do is move to a lower rent location, or purchase your own home.

Then many of the poor have children they could never afford in the first place. Once you end up on some social program because of kids, you just bought a one-way ticket to poverty, because you are restricted in income to keep those social goodies coming in.

In the United States of America, poverty is not an infliction, poverty is a choice. So outside of those with physical or mental challenges, you can give me very few situations where a person is poor because of no choice.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The more you make the more you spend, you know that right?

But not as a percentage. You know that right?

Is that why the Ultra Rich cheat taxes and pump money into offshore accounts?
So they can SPEND it. lol.

If the Ultra Rich actually spent their money or put it back into circulation in ANY way, I would be in agreement.
But they don't.

They buy houses and cars..

And who provides the labor

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The more you make the more you spend, you know that right?

But not as a percentage. You know that right?

Is that why the Ultra Rich cheat taxes and pump money into offshore accounts?
So they can SPEND it. lol.

If the Ultra Rich actually spent their money or put it back into circulation in ANY way, I would be in agreement.
But they don't.

They buy houses and cars..

And who provides the labor

One of the negative ramifications of taking money from the wealthy is their decrease in charitable contributions. Wealthy people contribute to hospitals, build wings of colleges, contribute overseas money to help the needy. Why don't Democrats approve of this? Because the more we rely on each other for help, the less we rely on the federal government.

So tax these people to death, they stop charitable contributions, and the necessity to have these charities falls on the federal government once again; it justifies them in starting up more welfare programs.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The more you make the more you spend, you know that right?

But not as a percentage. You know that right?

Is that why the Ultra Rich cheat taxes and pump money into offshore accounts?
So they can SPEND it. lol.

If the Ultra Rich actually spent their money or put it back into circulation in ANY way, I would be in agreement.
But they don't.

They buy houses and cars..

And who provides the labor

One of the negative ramifications of taking money from the wealthy is their decrease in charitable contributions. Wealthy people contribute to hospitals, build wings of colleges, contribute overseas money to help the needy. Why don't Democrats approve of this? Because the more we rely on each other for help, the less we rely on the federal government.

So tax these people to death, they stop charitable contributions, and the necessity to have these charities falls on the federal government once again; it justifies them in starting up more welfare programs.

Exactly, the more money people have they will volunteer at soup kitchens get the money directly at people that need it the most..

No over head, Americans believe in god and jesus not government agency's

 

[Wyatt earp]

Liberals believe in taxes

Conservatives say why bother helping people

Conservatives go to churches, liberals go pray at the government

 

[Andylusion]

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Hitler would have been so proud of you.

If we took all the poor in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would they never be missed, it would benefit society greatly.

If we took all the rich in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country would collapse.

Next time you need a job, ask a homeless man for one.

Hitler was funded by the private companies. He maintained market economy. No idea where you have your nonsense from.
And without the rich the poor would not be poor. People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

Hold on. I'll argue with you about your opinion, but this history rewriting, no....

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

Ludwig Von Mises wrote all the way back in the 1950s..... the National Socialism, was in fact socialism. The Nazis were not capitalist free-market people.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
​

Yeah, it was more "capitalist" than the Russian version, where they just killed everyone and stole their stuff.

But leaving the "shop managers" in place, is about as close to free-market capitalism as it got. The state controlled everything. They controlled what you produced, what prices you charged, and what people got paid.... EVERYTHING. There's a famous (if questionable) statement by Hitler himself, where he said (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter to me if you own the cow.... as long as I own you".

Meaning, yeah on paper you own that manufacturing plant... but I'm telling you what you are going to manufacturer, and what price you'll charge, and who you'll employ, and so on.

And by the way, this is why German Socialism was superior to Russian Socialism. This is why the Russians were handing out rifles to every 5th soldier during the deployment. I told you in the other post, how terrible it is for the people with the knowledge and skills to leave the country.

The Russians killed all the people who knew out to make stuff work. That's why their entire economy imploded. While the German economy was clearly damaged by their socialistic controls, they didn't kill the people who knew how to make the businesses in the country run. They controlled them, yes, and that was harmful, but not nearly as bad as simply killing them all off like the Russians did.

But this mindless stupidity being puked out of universities today, that Hitler had a free-market capitalist economy.... I don't blame you for thinking that given the number of idiots in universities who have spouted this crap... but is crap. The people who were there, like Mises, who documented how the Nazis worked.... it wasn't free-market capitalism.... any more than me putting a gun to your head, and telling you to work.... is really voluntary exchange. BULL CRAP.

And without the rich the poor would not be poor.

Again... the rich left Cuba, and they left Venezuela, and they left N.Korea.

The people there..... are super freakin poor. More poor, than anyone here in the US. The poorest of the poor in the US, I don't see them eating grass like N.Korea. I don't see families, without mental illness, working a job.... and living in a refrigerator box, like they do in Cuba. There was a documentary that came out some years ago, where people were going to University to get a degree.... in order to be a waiter at a restaurant in Cuba.

No rich..... extremely extremely poor.

People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

If they didn't have crappy job, they would have no jobs.

Again, Cuba, Venezuela, N.Korea.... so on... Not having crappy jobs, doesn't mean that you'll magically have a good job.

That's a strange concept at face value. You are implying.... that if you eliminate crappy jobs, that people without skills, will either A: Magically get skills...... Or B: that jobs that require skills, will simply hire people without them..... because there are no crappy jobs, and so they hire people without skills.

This is a stupid ideology. If I run an auto repair bay..... I'm not hiring someone who can't fix a car, just because Walmart and McDonald's no longer exist.

If I need my water heater replaced, I'm not hiring someone who can't replace one.... just because there are no crappy jobs they can work.

The reason people get crappy jobs, is because they have crappy skills. It's not like all these people have degrees in nuclear physics, and are working at Wendy's because it..... well it exists.... and they are all just waiting for you to come along and ban crappy jobs, and then they'll all work NASA or SpaceX or something.

All these Ph.Ds all flipping burgers over, just waiting for the day you'll be elected and ban Wendy's, so they can go get their Quantum Physics job.

It's not happening dude. The reason people work at Wendy's is because they are not qualified to work elsewhere. You eliminating those jobs, doesn't make them qualified elsewhere. So you get rid of no-skill jobs, just means that no-skill people will be unemployed.

 

[Grumblenuts]

AOC rocks!

 

[Andylusion]

As Mario Cuomo said, Reagan made it acceptable to blame the poor. It's disgusting the way you can ignore the fact that the entire country is so unequal and there are so many $7 jobs it's ridiculous with no benefits. The economy has gotten so unfair and you believe people just got lazy. Absolutely ridiculous. All to save the greedy idiot GOP Rich from paying their fair share.

Income inequality will destroy us.

Cuba has great equality. Equally poor. North Korea has great equality. Equally poor. Venezuela has good equality.... equally starving to death.

Inequality is a good thing. Every single country that has a higher standard of living, has inequality.

 

[Andylusion]

If the federal tax rate was 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the federal tax rate was 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to create wealth?

Then don´t scream "theft" while the hard working people pay up.

That's our point though. Every time you try and tax the rich, you end up taxing the poor. So *YOU* don't scream theft, when *YOU* end up paying the bill.

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated. But I think that the whole story is a hoax. You know US law? You have to pay up anyway, no matter where you got to. They´d have to give up on their citizenship. Also, not every rich is this unpatriotic.

But it is true. It's a statistical, historical fact.

View attachment 290063
The effective tax rate on the top 1%, isn't much different today, than it was in the 70s or 50s, when tax rates were double what they are today.

What that means is that the share of the tax burden has fallen more on the poor, than the rich, in the past.

View attachment 290064

The poorest 50% of tax payers (that would include the middle class, are paying less of the tax burden today, than they did in the 1970s with the 70% top marginal rate. Equally the top 1% are paying more of the tax burden today, than they did when the top marginal rate was 70%.

This isn't theory.... it is flat out statistical, undeniable, documented fact.

if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Again... that has been tried. They tried it in Venezuela. The rich packed up and left, and the government confiscated their wealth.

What you people don't seem to understand, is that it is the rich people themselves, that know how to make assets have value. That is in fact, exactly why they are wealthy.

Farms that produced enough food to feed the country, and export the surplus food.... were confiscated. The wealthy farm owners left the country. The farms stopped producing food, because shockingly peasants and poor people... don't know how to farm, and nether do the government bureaucrats.

Now they have mass starvation. What makes the assets have value is that someone knows how to make them produce value. You ditch the people who have the money and knowledge to make it work, and it doesn't work. A highly valuable farm, is now worthless.

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

You seem to be operating under the impression that wealth is static. Wealth is not static.

I worked at a Cadillac dealer. We had a poor guy that had been given a car. He wasn't super poor, but he didn't earn enough to own a Cadillac. In order to save money, he gave the car to a no-name mechanic shop, which pulled the motor apart (it needed a timing belt), and when they did that, they broke the engine block.

Expensive car, now a junk yard master piece. The value of the car changed. It wasn't worth, what it was before, when it was owned and could be maintained by a wealthy person.

This idea that you are just going to confiscate their stuff, and keep the wealth... that's not how the world works.

When Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil fields that Exxon was developing, it didn't make the government wealthy... it made the oil fields worthless. The government didn't have the equipment, nor the expertise to develop those oil fields... so they simply didn't get developed.

You know how much an oil field you can't pump oil from, is worth? Nothing.

And here's the thing.... did it hurt Exxon? In the short term, yes because they lost the money they put into those oil fields... .but in the long term it didn't hurt Exxon at all. They simply bought new equipment, and sent their skilled and knowledgeable people elsewhere in the world, and made money there, and developed oil fields there, and paid taxes in those countries, instead of Venezuela.

In the long term, Venezuela lost everything, and Exxon gained, just elsewhere.

Driving out these people, is going to be a net loss to everyone, except for the rich people.

Go back to Cuba even. The wealthy sugar plantations owners were driven out. The result wasn't that they got rich off the sugar fields. In fact, all the harvests declined after that, and Cuba became impoverished.

Meanwhile the wealthy plantation owners, simply left the country, and started businesses elsewhere, and most became wealthy again... just now they didn't benefit the poor Cubans left behind.

Your system, doesn't work. Never has in the past, and never will in the future.

That doesn´t speak in favor of the rich. It only proofs that they sponge up all the money.

If the rich stayed in Venezuela, and the government didn't socialize the food market, they would still be producing enough food to feed their people, and export to the rest of South American, just like they did before Hugo Chavez and Maduro screwed everything up.

Honestly, until you show me even one country that has lots of jobs and wealth... with zero rich people.... then yeah I think it does speak in favor of the rich.

Do tell.... how many impoverished beggars have you gotten a job from? List them all. I'd love to know.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Hitler would have been so proud of you.

If we took all the poor in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would they never be missed, it would benefit society greatly.

If we took all the rich in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country would collapse.

Next time you need a job, ask a homeless man for one.

Hitler was funded by the private companies. He maintained market economy. No idea where you have your nonsense from.
And without the rich the poor would not be poor. People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

Hold on. I'll argue with you about your opinion, but this history rewriting, no....

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

Ludwig Von Mises wrote all the way back in the 1950s..... the National Socialism, was in fact socialism. The Nazis were not capitalist free-market people.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
​

Yeah, it was more "capitalist" than the Russian version, where they just killed everyone and stole their stuff.

But leaving the "shop managers" in place, is about as close to free-market capitalism as it got. The state controlled everything. They controlled what you produced, what prices you charged, and what people got paid.... EVERYTHING. There's a famous (if questionable) statement by Hitler himself, where he said (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter to me if you own the cow.... as long as I own you".

Meaning, yeah on paper you own that manufacturing plant... but I'm telling you what you are going to manufacturer, and what price you'll charge, and who you'll employ, and so on.

And by the way, this is why German Socialism was superior to Russian Socialism. This is why the Russians were handing out rifles to every 5th soldier during the deployment. I told you in the other post, how terrible it is for the people with the knowledge and skills to leave the country.

The Russians killed all the people who knew out to make stuff work. That's why their entire economy imploded. While the German economy was clearly damaged by their socialistic controls, they didn't kill the people who knew how to make the businesses in the country run. They controlled them, yes, and that was harmful, but not nearly as bad as simply killing them all off like the Russians did.

But this mindless stupidity being puked out of universities today, that Hitler had a free-market capitalist economy.... I don't blame you for thinking that given the number of idiots in universities who have spouted this crap... but is crap. The people who were there, like Mises, who documented how the Nazis worked.... it wasn't free-market capitalism.... any more than me putting a gun to your head, and telling you to work.... is really voluntary exchange. BULL CRAP.

And without the rich the poor would not be poor.

Again... the rich left Cuba, and they left Venezuela, and they left N.Korea.

The people there..... are super freakin poor. More poor, than anyone here in the US. The poorest of the poor in the US, I don't see them eating grass like N.Korea. I don't see families, without mental illness, working a job.... and living in a refrigerator box, like they do in Cuba. There was a documentary that came out some years ago, where people were going to University to get a degree.... in order to be a waiter at a restaurant in Cuba.

No rich..... extremely extremely poor.

People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

If they didn't have crappy job, they would have no jobs.

Again, Cuba, Venezuela, N.Korea.... so on... Not having crappy jobs, doesn't mean that you'll magically have a good job.

That's a strange concept at face value. You are implying.... that if you eliminate crappy jobs, that people without skills, will either A: Magically get skills...... Or B: that jobs that require skills, will simply hire people without them..... because there are no crappy jobs, and so they hire people without skills.

This is a stupid ideology. If I run an auto repair bay..... I'm not hiring someone who can't fix a car, just because Walmart and McDonald's no longer exist.

If I need my water heater replaced, I'm not hiring someone who can't replace one.... just because there are no crappy jobs they can work.

The reason people get crappy jobs, is because they have crappy skills. It's not like all these people have degrees in nuclear physics, and are working at Wendy's because it..... well it exists.... and they are all just waiting for you to come along and ban crappy jobs, and then they'll all work NASA or SpaceX or something.

All these Ph.Ds all flipping burgers over, just waiting for the day you'll be elected and ban Wendy's, so they can go get their Quantum Physics job.

It's not happening dude. The reason people work at Wendy's is because they are not qualified to work elsewhere. You eliminating those jobs, doesn't make them qualified elsewhere. So you get rid of no-skill jobs, just means that no-skill people will be unemployed.

well it exists.... and they are all just waiting for you to come along and ban crappy jobs, and then they'll all work NASA or SpaceX or something.

You just gave me a laugh..

Thank you, now I have to change my depends

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Hitler would have been so proud of you.

If we took all the poor in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would they never be missed, it would benefit society greatly.

If we took all the rich in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country would collapse.

Next time you need a job, ask a homeless man for one.

Hitler was funded by the private companies. He maintained market economy. No idea where you have your nonsense from.
And without the rich the poor would not be poor. People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

Hold on. I'll argue with you about your opinion, but this history rewriting, no....

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

Ludwig Von Mises wrote all the way back in the 1950s..... the National Socialism, was in fact socialism. The Nazis were not capitalist free-market people.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
​

Yeah, it was more "capitalist" than the Russian version, where they just killed everyone and stole their stuff.

But leaving the "shop managers" in place, is about as close to free-market capitalism as it got. The state controlled everything. They controlled what you produced, what prices you charged, and what people got paid.... EVERYTHING. There's a famous (if questionable) statement by Hitler himself, where he said (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter to me if you own the cow.... as long as I own you".

Meaning, yeah on paper you own that manufacturing plant... but I'm telling you what you are going to manufacturer, and what price you'll charge, and who you'll employ, and so on.

And by the way, this is why German Socialism was superior to Russian Socialism. This is why the Russians were handing out rifles to every 5th soldier during the deployment. I told you in the other post, how terrible it is for the people with the knowledge and skills to leave the country.

The Russians killed all the people who knew out to make stuff work. That's why their entire economy imploded. While the German economy was clearly damaged by their socialistic controls, they didn't kill the people who knew how to make the businesses in the country run. They controlled them, yes, and that was harmful, but not nearly as bad as simply killing them all off like the Russians did.

But this mindless stupidity being puked out of universities today, that Hitler had a free-market capitalist economy.... I don't blame you for thinking that given the number of idiots in universities who have spouted this crap... but is crap. The people who were there, like Mises, who documented how the Nazis worked.... it wasn't free-market capitalism.... any more than me putting a gun to your head, and telling you to work.... is really voluntary exchange. BULL CRAP.

And without the rich the poor would not be poor.

Again... the rich left Cuba, and they left Venezuela, and they left N.Korea.

The people there..... are super freakin poor. More poor, than anyone here in the US. The poorest of the poor in the US, I don't see them eating grass like N.Korea. I don't see families, without mental illness, working a job.... and living in a refrigerator box, like they do in Cuba. There was a documentary that came out some years ago, where people were going to University to get a degree.... in order to be a waiter at a restaurant in Cuba.

No rich..... extremely extremely poor.

People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

If they didn't have crappy job, they would have no jobs.

Again, Cuba, Venezuela, N.Korea.... so on... Not having crappy jobs, doesn't mean that you'll magically have a good job.

That's a strange concept at face value. You are implying.... that if you eliminate crappy jobs, that people without skills, will either A: Magically get skills...... Or B: that jobs that require skills, will simply hire people without them..... because there are no crappy jobs, and so they hire people without skills.

This is a stupid ideology. If I run an auto repair bay..... I'm not hiring someone who can't fix a car, just because Walmart and McDonald's no longer exist.

If I need my water heater replaced, I'm not hiring someone who can't replace one.... just because there are no crappy jobs they can work.

The reason people get crappy jobs, is because they have crappy skills. It's not like all these people have degrees in nuclear physics, and are working at Wendy's because it..... well it exists.... and they are all just waiting for you to come along and ban crappy jobs, and then they'll all work NASA or SpaceX or something.

All these Ph.Ds all flipping burgers over, just waiting for the day you'll be elected and ban Wendy's, so they can go get their Quantum Physics job.

It's not happening dude. The reason people work at Wendy's is because they are not qualified to work elsewhere. You eliminating those jobs, doesn't make them qualified elsewhere. So you get rid of no-skill jobs, just means that no-skill people will be unemployed.

You forget yourself, sir. In the magical before-fore time, when we weren't being oppressed by the invention of a universal trade medium, nourishment leapt eagerly into the mouths of the hungry. Children danced and sang alongside candy rivers, with gumdrop smiles! Before the oppression of white wealth, womankind and nature lived together in blissful harmony. There was no need for personal property, because everyone simply took what they needed, and there was so much prosperity that nobody had any reason to object.

 

[francoHFW]

Where are the rich going to move their monies?

Anywhere. Doesn't matter where. Anywhere would be better, than being under the tax system that AOC just proposed. Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, Finland even. Anywhere.

A wealth tax, will make anywhere in the entire world, preferable to here. If I have $200 Million to spend on a vacation home.... that home in the US is going to be taxed, and elsewhere it will not. I'm not talking property tax, that everyone pays... but a tax on the unrealized capital gain. No where else does that, although France tried it and repealed it because it was a huge failure.

So anywhere else, is going to be preferable to here, under AOC's system.

The Rich are not going anywhere and there will still be plenty of loopholes. But there will be enough -also taxing giant corporations, to give us less inequality and more upward Mobility again...

How so, you fucking think giving more money to the government will make you rich?

Since I am not a brainwashed functional moron greedy GOP idiot Tama I want to help the whole country's not just myself I'm retired happily. Tax the rich and corporations so that you can invest in our infrastructure and our education and training to make it more available. We have way too many $7 jobs. You people can't seem to see beyond your own nose. And you certainly have no idea about what Democrats want.

Say what?

Once again why dont you read the job boards

I am happily retired for the third time thanks.

 

[Andylusion]

The more you make the more you spend, you know that right?

But not as a percentage. You know that right?

Is that why the Ultra Rich cheat taxes and pump money into offshore accounts?
So they can SPEND it. lol.

If the Ultra Rich actually spent their money or put it back into circulation in ANY way, I would be in agreement.
But they don't.

They do though. ALL of the money they have is back in circulation. All of it. Not "any" of it. ALL of it is in circulation.

In fact, every thing they do, does that.

I'm confused..... do you think that the rich have some vault somewhere, with just piles of cash in it? This isn't a Disney cartoon. There is no Scrooge McDuck swimming through dollar bills.

Everything a rich person does with money, is beneficial. If they spend it, it benefits the economy. If they invest it, it benefits the economy. If they save it, they are usually just saving it for a future larger investment, or larger spending.

But even when they save it.... they save it at a bank. What does the bank do with the money? They spend it.... or save it.... or invest it. All of which is beneficial to the economy.

I can prove to you that the ultra rich are not just sitting on stacks of money, in five second.......

Warren Buffet net worth
Warren Buffett

$86 Billion.

Total amount of all cash, ALL US CURRENCY currently in circulation.....

How Many US Dollar and Coins are there in Circulation? | TitleMax

$1.4 Billion.

Now what you call that right there...... is a math problem. Warren Buffet is hording $86 Billion in dollars.... and there are only $1.4 Billion dollars in existence on the planet.

Might need to rethink your argument my friend.... just a tad.