Ocasio-Cortez: “A System That Allows Billionaires” Is Immoral

[Lesh]

No .001% person is going to sit still while the Feds tax 70% of his income and 3% of his wealth (the Warren Plan). Just as Chinese Communists have sheltered their wealth in the U.S., the U.S. based Rich will find other tax shelters outside of the U.S.

Somehow...we had a top tax rate of NINETY percent into 1960 and a SEVENTY per cent rate until 1980.

We were the powerhouse of the world.

Oddly...the middle class has been declining SINCE 1980

 

[boedicca]

No .001% person is going to sit still while the Feds tax 70% of his income and 3% of his wealth (the Warren Plan). Just as Chinese Communists have sheltered their wealth in the U.S., the U.S. based Rich will find other tax shelters outside of the U.S.

Somehow...we had a top tax rate of NINETY percent into 1960 and a SEVENTY per cent rate until 1980.

We were the powerhouse of the world.

Oddly...the middle class has been declining SINCE 1980

That is such a tired canard that has been disproven repeatedly on the board.

The income tax code allowed for far more deductions and exclusions back then so that the effective tax rates were nowhere near that egregious level.

In RealityLand, regardless of the tax rates, total federal receipts trend in the 18-20% of GDP range. IOW, people adjust their behaviors to high tax rates.

Helpful Hint: Hauser's Law

Hauser’s Law

 

[Lesh]

Bullshit. When the top rate was dropped to 70% in 1960 they did away with most of the loop holes.

If you want to actually be considered honest...post the average adjusted top tax rate from 1980s as opposed to now

 

[g5000]

IOW, people adjust their behaviors to high tax rates.

That's right. They produce less. That's not an outcome we desire.

The more you tax something, the less of it you get.

That's why we need to eliminate taxes on production (income taxes) and enact taxes on consumption (like the Fair Tax).

 

[g5000]

The income tax code allowed for far more deductions and exclusions back then so that the effective tax rates were nowhere near that egregious level.

I seriously doubt this claim. We currently have $1.4 TRILLION in annual tax expenditures.

We don't need a 70 percent tax margin. We need to eliminate those tax expenditures, and then we will have a balanced budget and we can LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

 

[Lesh]

And then tell us why the wealthy fight so HARD against a tax rate they claim they never pay

 

[boedicca]

IOW, people adjust their behaviors to high tax rates.

That's right. They produce less. That's not an outcome we desire.

The more you tax something, the less of it you get.

That's why we need to eliminate taxes on production (income taxes) and enact taxes on consumption (like the Fair Tax).

Consumption taxes don't really work either.

Companies lobby to get things exempt from sales or VAT tax so that it ends up being a confusing mess.

This is behind the WSJ firewall - if you have access, it's a good read:

However, wait until the folks at the IRS get their hands on the regulations for the application of the new tax. They will undoubtedly turn to their more experienced British counterparts for guidance.

"Food of the kind used for human consumption," to a British bureaucrat, is something "the average person, knowing what it is and how it is used, would consider it to be food or drink; and it is fit for human consumption. . . . The term includes . . . products like flour, which, although not eaten by themselves, are generally recognized food ingredients . . . [but] would not usually include . . . dietary supplements, food additives and similar products, which, although edible, are not generally regarded as food."

And so, in the United Kingdom, according to the regulations of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue Service, crackers made from tapioca starch carry no tax; prawn crackers made from cereals do. Frozen yogurt that needs to be thawed before eating is zero rated, frozen yogurt bears the tax. Get it? If you don't, too bad—Her Majesty's tax collectors are not in the habit of offering an explanation for their regulations.

Food for animals creates other problems. If it is "suitable for all breeds" it is taxed, but if "it is held out for sale exclusively for working dogs" it is not, unless, of course, "it is biscuit or meal," in which case it is taxed.

So dog food for "sheepdog breeds" is taxed, but dog food for "working sheep dogs of any breed" is not; food for greyhounds is taxed, food for "racing greyhounds" is not. This may be the only tax in Britain that favors work over leisure.

Clothing also presents a problem for the British tax man. Two problems, actually.

First, what is clothing? Well, sailors' lifejackets are clothing because they "have the form and function of clothing," but "buoyancy aids" are not. Second, since children's clothing is zero-rated, what fits into that category?

Bras up to and including size 34B; body stockings that measure no more than 27½ inches shoulder to crotch; babies' shawls but not "mother-and-baby shawls intended to wrap around both mother and child." There's more, lots more, but you get the idea.

Small Bras and the Value-Added Tax

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

IOW, people adjust their behaviors to high tax rates

Well no shit, that's kind of the point. Just as we adjusted as a society to the steep reduction of the preograssive tax by watching wages stagnate, buying power decrease, and the middle.class evaporate.

So, it's time to adjust the tax code.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Someone needs to tell Cortez that Obammy spent 8 years holding $40,000 a plate fund raisers with billionaires

 

[francoHFW]

Someone needs to tell Cortez that Obammy spent 8 years holding $40,000 a plate fund raisers with billionaires

Of course he did. Did you really believe he was a communist, dumbass. On the other hand smart rich people know we have to invest in the middle class and our infrastructure to have a healthy economy. Something Reagan and his followers have almost wrecked the last 35 years with their giveaway to the rich. Without BS propaganda the new BS GOP would be finished.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Someone needs to tell Cortez that Obammy spent 8 years holding $40,000 a plate fund raisers with billionaires

And someone needs to tell you that Obama tried to get people access to healthcare. not that you understand why this is relevant, since you didn't watch a single second of the video you are commenting on.

 

[g5000]

IOW, people adjust their behaviors to high tax rates.

That's right. They produce less. That's not an outcome we desire.

The more you tax something, the less of it you get.

That's why we need to eliminate taxes on production (income taxes) and enact taxes on consumption (like the Fair Tax).

Consumption taxes don't really work either.

Companies lobby to get things exempt from sales or VAT tax so that it ends up being a confusing mess.

This is not something inherent in consumption taxes. It is a failing of ALL tax schemes.

Exemptions ARE tax expenditures!

That's why I have said countless times on this forum that it does not matter what kind of tax scheme you have if you allow exemptions, credits, or deductions. As soon as you allow them, it becomes immediately corrupted.

Our current income tax has $1.4 TRILLION in exemptions, deductions, and credits.

That's per YEAR. Not per decade. It should be no mystery why we are $21 trillion in debt.


Which is why I have said an equal number of times that the Fair Tax would have to have ZERO exemptions. As soon as you allow even the smallest exemption (for milk, say), then you have re-opened Pandora's box all over again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the Fair Tax would have to have ZERO exemptions.

It should have them for poorer people

 

[Flash]

A system where 40% of the GDP is spent on combined Federal, State and Local government is a million times more immoral.

A fucked up immoral bloated government. We haz it.

 

[g5000]

the Fair Tax would have to have ZERO exemptions.

It should have them for poorer people

No. That's what the prebate is for.

ZERO exemptions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the Fair Tax would have to have ZERO exemptions.

It should have them for poorer people

No. That's what the prebate is for.

ZERO exemptions.

Okay, good enough for me. As long as their is relief for poorer people.

 

[boedicca]

IOW, people adjust their behaviors to high tax rates.

That's right. They produce less. That's not an outcome we desire.

The more you tax something, the less of it you get.

That's why we need to eliminate taxes on production (income taxes) and enact taxes on consumption (like the Fair Tax).

Consumption taxes don't really work either.

Companies lobby to get things exempt from sales or VAT tax so that it ends up being a confusing mess.

This is not something inherent in consumption taxes. It is a failing of ALL tax schemes.

Exemptions ARE tax expenditures!

That's why I have said countless times on this forum that it does not matter what kind of tax scheme you have if you allow exemptions, credits, or deductions. As soon as you allow them, it becomes immediately corrupted.

Our current income tax has $1.4 TRILLION in exemptions, deductions, and credits.

That's per YEAR. Not per decade. It should be no mystery why we are $21 trillion in debt.


Which is why I have said an equal number of times that the Fair Tax would have to have ZERO exemptions. As soon as you allow even the smallest exemption (for milk, say), then you have re-opened Pandora's box all over again.

My preference would be for the government to dramatically descope to proper essential services and eliminate transfer payments and corporate welfare.

Some services could them be fee based - just like passports are.

Those services which are truly "General Welfare": national security, border control...should be funded with a low flat tax on income from all sources. I would put a ceiling of 10% on this with no exemptions or deductions.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Our giveaway to the rich GOP tax system is totally out of control... We need a 70% top rate over 10 million dollars to get CEO pay under control too...

Ok, so let's follow that idea to its conclusion.

You say take 70 cents on every dollar over 10 million that someone makes.

Ok, so, they look for more tax loopholes, or shelter their money offshore. Or worse yet, seeing as how there is no reason to produce enough to generate more than 10 million, shareholders call for production cuts, as there is no reason to produce any more than is needed to keep the company profitable. They only need to make enough to pay themselves and their employees, and keep the business in the green. any more is simply just shoveling money to the government, which is not a good business model.

Investors start pulling their money out of the stock market so that their capital gains is just under 10 million, and charitable giving takes a nose dive.

Result: millions of people lose their jobs and their retirement dreams are shattered.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, curious, why punish those who are successful? Because someone took a risk, and built a company, and are now reaping the rewards, you think we should punish them?

I'm all for a flat tax with no loopholes. Everyone pays the same rate. It's the most fair way to do it.

 

[g5000]

So, curious, why punish those who are successful? Because someone took a risk, and built a company, and are now reaping the rewards, you think we should punish them?

I'm all for a flat tax with no loopholes. Everyone pays the same rate. It's the most fair way to do it.

Flat taxes are regressive. They are not fair in any way.