Printable View
Pickled pink? No. Happy to give my fair share? Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
I am completely fine with being taxed at an appropriate rate, and I think most people are. But start talking .70 on every dollar, you can **** right off.
Unless you earn at the top 1% of 1%, you won't be paying that rate. And even if you did, it is a marginal tax rate which means the vast majority of the income would not be taxed at that rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo
I thought he handled it perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
Let's discuss on the people's floor, not on Twitter.
She has idiot internet trolls, calling for him to be sniped. It would be useless to get on there and flame with her, or anyone else that insane.
You're wrong. She is talking about a flat tax rate of 70% for every million over $10m. Are you really trying to justify this? It's not your money, it's not America's money and it sure the hell isn't money for her to dispose of how she wishes. It's the money of the people who earned it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Honestly, if you are ok with it you're a ****ing idiot.
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES445
.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo
Me...and before you say it, yes, I am in my right mind.
No, actually he’s right. And so are you. If you took the time to read his post instead of immediately flying off on a tirade, you’d understand that you are both saying the exact same thing (you might want to look up the meaning of “marginal tax rate” too).Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo
That said, the rest of your post is not worth commenting on.
I'll break down my points.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo
"It's not anything new". It's not. When Reagan took office wealthy americans were paying a 70% tax rate on all income above $216,000. For significant periods of time the rate has been right around or above this 70% number. Since then, the highest earners have seen their pay absolutely sky rocket where everyone else is basically doing the same. Wealth has become concentrated. But again, this is not anything unprecedented.
"There's nothing radical about it". Again, this was once the norm. And hell, this is a more moderate approach than many of the Scandinavian countries. Here's a brief bit from Matt Brueing on Sweden (he loves him some Sweden!). Here's an article from the NY Mag arguing that it's both "moderate" and "evidence-based". You won't read it because you're mind is made up and your mind is ready to fight for the wealthy! But it's compelling.
"Protect the rich and lie about it". It's all that's happening so far :laugh2: Don't know what you want me to say. You are more concerned with the rich keeping as much money as they can than having it fairly distributed so much of this country isn't just being left behind while the rich continue to pile up more money than they know what to do with it.
And you think I give a **** what "rich Democrats" are saying?!
Who is anyone to say what is "fairly distributed?"Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
Someone makes a lot of money so we need to fairly distribute a portion of that money to someone who doesn't?
The key phrase here is "makes a lot of money." Makes…nothing is given to them. They earned it somehow.
Average salary in the NBA is $6 million. MLB is $4 million. Why not max then out at $250,000 or $500,00 and reduce prices so I can afford to go to a ball game. The point is that without the incentives to make whatever they can thew quality of the product would decline drastically.
How much do rock stars, movie stars etc make? Is that OK?
Every one of these groups of athletes and entertainers all find little ways to offset their tax burden but no one ever complains because these are the cool ones. They're OK. Financial people, investors, industrialists etc…they're just too evil. Gotta get them.
The government should get out of the way and let people earn whatever they can. A reasonable tax rate is to be expected but taxing someone at absurd rates just because someone else thinks they can "afford it" is ridiculous.
Try it and the money will do away. It will move somewhere else.
This seems to be a faulty understanding of sports economics. The player salary effects the cost of the ticket, obviously, but there are so many other and more important factors in the cost of the ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
He either flat out lied or has no basic understanding of taxes, and then proceeded to whine to AOC about twitter trolls when AOC corrected him. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
I'm not surprised you thought he handled it well. It doesn't mean that he did though :laugh2:
I don't care if athletes and rock stars pay more taxes. They're lower on my list of concerns (think their owners or the massive media moguls) but this argument is absolutely 100% not meaningful to me at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
The working class has been utterly left behind, with the majority of this country in debt, living paycheck to paycheck and unable to afford a minor health issue. Real wages haven't gone up in decades. The was no trickle down. The rich are getting richer and everyone else is suffering. We are dealing with a massive issue. It should be handled accordingly without any half measures.
The only reason there are billionaires is because we allow it. "Fairly distributed" is what we determine it is as a society. I think most would agree that it isn't distributed well at all. The GOP has zero interest in tackling that issue. In fact, they want to take more money away from the working class to give more tax cuts to the rich. I find that to be utterly indefensible. And I'm not terribly concerned with continuing this discussion unless we circle back and hear from you whether you think there is a income inequality problem at all. Because if not, that's the key hold up and everything else doesn't matter.
So we do have a basic understanding that our tax code is marginal. Right? I know we have differences of opinion but we do agree on the basic facts. Right?
When you earn more than the bottom threshold, only money earned above that threshold and not above the next one gets taxed at the higher rate. If you earn enough money to make it into the top tax bracket, all of your money does not get taxed at that rate. If you earn over $500,000; your first $500,000 are taxed at their respective brackets.
Probably worth circling back and making sure we all get this considering it's the basis for the initial disagreement. It was clear those conservative responses either were intentional misrepresentations of what she called for or the result of ignorance. Still, I don't think it's clear everyone gets it. I know I certainly am not an expert on the tax code at all. But I think I get this.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Also, another though on AOC in general. She is undeniably riling up a lot of the GOP, for whatever reasons. Because of that, she's activating polarization, which is causing many Democrats to defend left policy that they might not otherwise actively defend from those on the right. I know the "overton window" is becoming a trendy word, but she is moving a lot of this discourse to the left. Moreover, AOC is very popular across the whole of the Party. She attracts plenty of the crowd that does not like Bernie Sanders, despite broadly advocating for similar policy. Someone like Paul Krugman, who was a vocal critic of Sanders has spent a lot of time backing up AOC and defending her. You'll still have the holdouts, like Manchin and McCaskill (or...Anderson Cooper, I guess!) who clearly have no time for any leftward movement, but she is resonating with seemingly the vast majority of the party. And for a leftist, that's a great accomplishment.
thank you for posting what I already posted and commented on.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
she is a new shiny toy to play with, she is the clown. headlines are false, like how Conservatives have a problem with her dancing video. nobody cares about her dancing, it came from a now deleted account.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/no-cons...-on-a-rooftop/
https://static.pjmedia.com/trending/...lly_nobody.pngQuote:
No, Conservatives Are Not Angry That AOC Danced on a Rooftop
Quote:
Who is "AnonymousQ1776"? I have no idea. He or she has since deleted that account. But apparently, he or she speaks for all Republicans and conservatives everywhere, because that's what journalists and Democrats (pardon the redundancy) need to believe.
"Conservatives" = One anonymous Twitter user with a now-deleted account.
But this is now the narrative. So of course, now it loops right back around where it started:
Asked @AOC re this dancing video. She said:
"It is not normal for elected officials to have a reputation for dancing well and I'm happy to be one."
Which Republicans are saying that? Can AOC name them? Can any of the reporters asking her about it name them? No, and nobody expects them to, because the narrative reinforces what they already believe.
Politically, she's smart to capitalize on this. She may even sincerely believe "the GOP" thinks this. But it's not true, and the people making this claim don't care that it's not true. It fits the slot in their brains marked "OMG UR SO SCARED OF AOC," and that's the only thing that matters.
If any Republican or conservative that you've ever heard of is angry or otherwise agitated about AOC dancing on a rooftop, it's just weird that nobody can come up with a name.
Conservatives do not care about her dancing. let her dance. this is just a deflection away from other things she has been criticized on.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not that smart, and has already been called out on several things by politifact.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-counts-abou/
Quote:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrong on several counts about unemployment
https://static.politifact.com/ruling...antsonfire.gifQuote:
"Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family."
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday, July 13th, 2018 in an interview on PBS' "Firing Line"
just imagine if Trump said this..
"There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”
just imagine if Trump said he doesn't have to be factually right. the left would criticize this bigly. but Trump didn't say this, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.40abed1bf48d
Quote:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s very bad defense of her falsehoods
more about her in the link.Quote:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has made a bigger splash than any freshman in the 116th Congress -- in either the House or the Senate. And a big reason why is an often-overzealous conservative effort to knock her down a few pegs. The congresswoman has put on a PR masterclass in using those efforts to build her profile and social-media following. (Her retort to the overblown dancing-video kerfuffle last week has been viewed nearly 20 million times.)
But she’s also shown a tendency to exaggerate or misstate basic facts. And her defense of this in a Sunday interview with “60 Minutes” was very bad.
When Anderson Cooper confronted her with The Washington Post Fact Checker’s Four-Pinocchio verdict on her claim about $21 trillion in waste at the Pentagon, Ocasio-Cortez offered this (emphasis added):
COOPER: One of the criticisms of you is that-- that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios --
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Oh my goodness --
COOPER: -- for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?
OCASIO-CORTEZ: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.
COOPER: But being factually correct is important--
OCASIO-CORTEZ: It’s absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, “Okay, this was clumsy,” and then I restate what my point was. But it’s -- it’s not the same thing as -- as the president lying about immigrants. It’s not the same thing at all.
if Trump or anyone on the right does not get a pass for not being factually right then neither should this new shiny left wing toy.
some want to push about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on social media for her likes/retweets as if that matters. it doesn't.