Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Loren Pechtel]

Not even 2% since the crash. Yet GDP growth averaged about twice that back back in pre-neoliberal days when central banks prioritised full employment. The New Deal, combined with the deficit spending of WWII, resulted in the greatest, most widespread burst of growth, progress and prosperity in American history — before or since. Pretty much the same happened across the OECD with GDP growth averaging >4% per year in the 1950s, and nearly 5% in the 1960s, compared with 3% in the 1970s and 2% (if that) since the 1980s.

Higher GDP growth is easy when the economy lags technology. We have seen various developing nations accomplish 7-8% growth rates in such situations. Note that the civilian economy had been seriously held back during the war, at that point the economy was not running at it's potential and a higher growth rate was to be expected. Attributing that to government policies is wrong.

To spend more than that you have to take it back out of the economy somehow.

Fine. Tax, raise interest rates or cut spending as and when inflation kicks in. Don't hamstring the economy with an artificial scarcity of money just because some people don't like public spending.

I note your first option is tax--but this was being presented as an alternative to tax!

On the contrary, taxes do not fund federal govt spending in the first place.

As for raising interest rates, that's not going to do any good. Raising interest rates is about slowing the rate money moves around and thus lowering the effective money supply.

Then it is indeed, as I said, a means of controlling inflation. Do try to maintain context.

To overcome this huge injection of cash you'll have to raise them a lot every year. Pretty soon nobody will borrow and your control breaks.

Even if govt "borrowing" were dependent on credit markets - which it isn't - this would make no sense at all.

I'm having a hard time figuring out your position here.

I am pointing out that funding government out of the monetary supply growth the economy needs limits government spending to that growth rate--which averages around 2%. You're presenting a bunch of other alternatives and then denying them--I'm puzzled.

And government borrowing most certainly is limited. Look at what happened to Greece--everyone decided they were too overextended to pay their bills and wouldn't loan to them. Every IMF bailout is of this sort--a country borrowed until it could borrow no more and thus the IMF stepped into try to minimize how hard the shit hit the fan.

And we aren't hamstringing the economy. We are trying to keep it going smoothly--the supply of money matches the goods & services available so prices stay stable. What you seem to be advocating (accepting inflation to boost the economy) was already tried--and we got stagflation. The gains are short term, the pain doesn't go away nearly so easily.

On the contrary, you got decades of boom, then stagflation which was short term and had as much to do with geopolitical oil shocks as wage/price spirals. We now have the opposite problem.

We had decades of boom when the government aimed to keep inflation under control. Then some idiots noticed that inflation lead to GDP increases and they tried allowing more inflation to increase growth--but that GDP increase was actually do to unanticipated inflation distorting their economic forecasts, expected inflation caused no growth. Hence, stagflation. Since we got that back under control we have gone back to the old policy and it's worked pretty well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Really? Then you believe that the government should not allow Mark Zuckerberg to retain his shares of facebook? You do know that his massive wealth is overwhelmingly his ownership of facebook don't you? And what do you think the government should do with facebook once they confiscate or nationalize it?

What exactly is the point of this line of question? Who is saying to nationalize anything? Are you simply disagreeing with the fact that taxation should reflect wealth, and that there is some better formula out there? If so, what is your proposal?

You're trying to take away his company. You're right that it's not about nationalizing--the stock will be sold and the government get the proceeds rather than the shares themselves.

It's still wildly unfair, though--why should you have your company taken away for being too successful?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, politicians add exemptions over time in order to encourage behavior. For example: home ownership, child raising, economic development, saving for retirement, donations for charity, are all exemptions added by politicians to encourage behavior. Barring exemptions, what do you think the tax rate should be?

I do not know what the tax rate should be. My concern is that at a time of decent economic activity we have trillion dollar budget deficits. Is that a sustainable long term behavior?

We have trillion dollar deficits because His Flatulence pushed through a huge tax cut.

Send the GOP to the wall (as in firing squad, not border) and repeal all their tax legislation. We won't have trillion dollar deficits anymore.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps we can cut spending to avoid deficits. Like normal people would. Nah. Crazy talk.

Left wing as I am I am certainly on board with that.

No one seems willing to address the point I'm attempting to make about wealth and taxes being in relation. Does everyone here simply disagree with me that wealth and taxes are not related?

I live in a home where I pay property taxes. I've never lived in a home in five different states where I did not pay property taxes based on the value of my property. Can someone tell me how that is not a wealth tax?

Sure of that? In many places the response to the housing boom of the 2000's was measures capping the rate at which the tax on a piece of property could increase. California got into this much earlier and much more severely.

The reasoning behind this is good--one shouldn't be driven from one's home by the value of the home going up. Unfortunately, when it's sufficiently aggressive it makes a major distortion as we see in California. I would much favor a system where the bills are thus restrained but the excess appears as a lien on the property which must be resolved when it's transferred.

Furthermore, the purpose of this tax is to fund a lot of services that are needed by the virtue of your property existing. You need police, fire, schools etc because your property exists. It's much more about providing the infrastructure to a house than a wealth tax on the house.

 

[Canard DuJour]

My concern is that at a time of decent economic activity we have trillion dollar budget deficits. Is that a sustainable long term behavior?

Yes :

Isn’t it Time to Stop Calling it “The National Debt”?


Fourteen. Trillion. Dollars. That’s how much the U.S. government “owes.” You hear that massive number all the time, right? And people are forever telling you that you and your family are on the hook to pay off that scary huge number. There are 125 million U.S. households. You do the arithmetic. The horror.

What those scare-mongers don’t tell you, and generally don’t even understand: it actually makes almost no sense to call that figure “the national debt.” And no, you’re not on the hook to pay it back.

http://evonomics.com/isnt-time-stop-calling-national-debt/

 

[Canard DuJour]

Not even 2% since the crash. Yet GDP growth averaged about twice that back back in pre-neoliberal days when central banks prioritised full employment. The New Deal, combined with the deficit spending of WWII, resulted in the greatest, most widespread burst of growth, progress and prosperity in American history — before or since. Pretty much the same happened across the OECD with GDP growth averaging >4% per year in the 1950s, and nearly 5% in the 1960s, compared with 3% in the 1970s and 2% (if that) since the 1980s.

Higher GDP growth is easy when the economy lags technology. We have seen various developing nations accomplish 7-8% growth rates in such situations. Note that the civilian economy had been seriously held back during the war, at that point the economy was not running at it's potential and a higher growth rate was to be expected. Attributing that to government policies is wrong.

Except we're talking about the developed economies with growth accelerating decades later. If anything, they were "held back" before the war by the Great Depression, which was decisively ended by massive deficit spending of WW11, despite debt-to-GDP dwarfing today's.

I'm having a hard time figuring out your position here.

I am pointing out that funding government out of the monetary supply growth the economy needs limits government spending to that growth rate--which averages around 2%. You're presenting a bunch of other alternatives and then denying them--I'm puzzled.

What I deny is that a sovereign currency issuing govt is budget-constrained like a household. The constraint is the availability of real resources, beyond which the danger is inflation, not insolvency. Hence taxation and so-called "borrowing" (which is actually interest rate tinkering). The mathematics of these 'paygo' costings are neither right nor wrong because they're bullshit PR exercises for voters who think the economy is just a big household. A growth rate of 2% (if that) is historically poor and not some immutable fact of nature. The spending itself can boost sluggish growth so long as the real resources are there.

And government borrowing most certainly is limited. Look at what happened to Greece--everyone decided they were too overextended to pay their bills and wouldn't loan to them. Every IMF bailout is of this sort--a country borrowed until it could borrow no more and thus the IMF stepped into try to minimize how hard the shit hit the fan.

Greece is not a sovereign currency issuer. Every IMF bailout is of a country that either cannot issue its own currency or needs to borrow in a foreign currency due to real resource constraints.

And we aren't hamstringing the economy. We are trying to keep it going smoothly--the supply of money matches the goods & services available so prices stay stable. What you seem to be advocating (accepting inflation to boost the economy) was already tried--and we got stagflation. The gains are short term, the pain doesn't go away nearly so easily.

On the contrary, you got decades of boom, then stagflation which was short term and had as much to do with geopolitical oil shocks as wage/price spirals. We now have the opposite problem.

We had decades of boom when the government aimed to keep inflation under control. Then some idiots noticed that inflation lead to GDP increases and they tried allowing more inflation to increase growth--but that GDP increase was actually do to unanticipated inflation distorting their economic forecasts, expected inflation caused no growth. Hence, stagflation.

Nope, inflation was often much higher than is tolerated now because central banks prioritised full employment. It didn't hurt most folks because wages grew apace. It mainly hurt the the creditor class which managed to get it reversed and now basically runs government.

Since we got that back under control we have gone back to the old policy and it's worked pretty well.

It certainly has not. Growth slowed despite the IT revolution, wage growth stopped, the worst crisis since the Great Depression, the slowest recovery on record, ugly nationalisms not seen since the 1930s reappearing everywhere.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Really? Then you believe that the government should not allow Mark Zuckerberg to retain his shares of facebook? You do know that his massive wealth is overwhelmingly his ownership of facebook don't you? And what do you think the government should do with facebook once they confiscate or nationalize it?

What exactly is the point of this line of question? Who is saying to nationalize anything? Are you simply disagreeing with the fact that taxation should reflect wealth, and that there is some better formula out there? If so, what is your proposal?

You're trying to take away his company. You're right that it's not about nationalizing--the stock will be sold and the government get the proceeds rather than the shares themselves.

It's still wildly unfair, though--why should you have your company taken away for being too successful?

Is someone trying to take away my house? Is there some magical level of "success" that means I don't have to pay taxes anymore?

Should they nationalize my kitchen because I don't have the liquidity on hand to continue to possess my house, liquidity I don't have because my house is 100 times bigger than all the other houses in the neighborhood?

Things like prop 13 only happen because governments take the windfalls and fritter them away instead of constraining themselves to inflation levels.

 

[skepticalbip]

You're trying to take away his company. You're right that it's not about nationalizing--the stock will be sold and the government get the proceeds rather than the shares themselves.

It's still wildly unfair, though--why should you have your company taken away for being too successful?

Is someone trying to take away my house? Is there some magical level of "success" that means I don't have to pay taxes anymore?

Should they nationalize my kitchen because I don't have the liquidity on hand to continue to possess my house, liquidity I don't have because my house is 100 times bigger than all the other houses in the neighborhood?

Things like prop 13 only happen because governments take the windfalls and fritter them away instead of constraining themselves to inflation levels.

You are only looking at one of your assets that make up your wealth and, even there, there is no federal tax only the same property tax that is paid by businesses (but businesses pay more because they don't have homestead exemption exclusion) but businesses also pay a business tax you don't. Other parts of your wealth such as your savings account, retirement account etc. do not have a wealth tax either. The government has even exempted the interest earned on your retirement account from taxation to encourage people to save. So how much wealth tax do you think the federal government should rightly levy on all of your wealth?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You're trying to take away his company. You're right that it's not about nationalizing--the stock will be sold and the government get the proceeds rather than the shares themselves.

It's still wildly unfair, though--why should you have your company taken away for being too successful?

Is someone trying to take away my house? Is there some magical level of "success" that means I don't have to pay taxes anymore?

Should they nationalize my kitchen because I don't have the liquidity on hand to continue to possess my house, liquidity I don't have because my house is 100 times bigger than all the other houses in the neighborhood?

Things like prop 13 only happen because governments take the windfalls and fritter them away instead of constraining themselves to inflation levels.

You are only looking at one of your assets that make up your wealth and, even there, there is no federal tax only the same property tax that is paid by businesses (but businesses pay more because they don't have homestead exemption exclusion) but businesses also pay a business tax you don't. Other parts of your wealth such as your savings account, retirement account etc. do not have a wealth tax either. The government has even exempted the interest earned on your retirement account from taxation to encourage people to save. So how much wealth tax do you think the federal government should rightly levy on all of your wealth?

Someone in this thread proposed that the solution is appropriate legislation. I honestly do not know what the percentage of wealth taxation should be set at to accomplish whatever goals and conditions a legislative body intends to carry through. But if I know what those goals are then I might be able to ballpark a figure. Preserving our individual freedoms, opportunity, our lives and our wealth would be high on that list.

Before we had child-labor laws children at the age of 7 were working to get money on which to survive. Do we want children laboring at age 7 to make money? Questions like that need answered.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are only looking at one of your assets that make up your wealth and, even there, there is no federal tax only the same property tax that is paid by businesses (but businesses pay more because they don't have homestead exemption exclusion) but businesses also pay a business tax you don't. Other parts of your wealth such as your savings account, retirement account etc. do not have a wealth tax either. The government has even exempted the interest earned on your retirement account from taxation to encourage people to save. So how much wealth tax do you think the federal government should rightly levy on all of your wealth?

Someone in this thread proposed that the solution is appropriate legislation. I honestly do not know what the percentage of wealth taxation should be set at to accomplish whatever goals and conditions a legislative body intends to carry through.
But if I know what those goals are then I might be able to ballpark a figure. Preserving our individual freedoms, opportunity, our lives and our wealth would be high on that list.

The goals have been to encourage the creation of wealth. That is why there is not a federal wealth tax and even exempting the interest earned on retirement accounts from income tax to encourage those planning for their retirement to save and increase their wealth. Maybe you can explain why you advocate discouraging the creation of wealth.

Before we had child-labor laws children at the age of 7 were working to get money on which to survive. Do we want children laboring at age 7 to make money? Questions like that need answered.

I see no relation between child labor laws and the matter of a wealth tax.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The goals have been to encourage the creation of wealth. That is why there is not a federal wealth tax and even exempting the interest earned on retirement accounts from income tax to encourage those planning for their retirement to save and increase their wealth. Maybe you can explain why you advocate discouraging the creation of wealth.

Before we had child-labor laws children at the age of 7 were working to get money on which to survive. Do we want children laboring at age 7 to make money? Questions like that need answered.

I see no relation between child labor laws and the matter of a wealth tax.

It is not my intention to discourage the creation of wealth. I do not see how a wealth tax would discourage the creation of wealth anymore than an income tax discourages the creation of income, or a property tax discourages owning a home.

The relationship between child labor and taxation is that children can be used to create additional wealth directly and immediately, a form of exploitation, or they can mature into educated adults, hopefully add value to the common good, and then be in a better position to decide for themselves their futures. Abraham Lincoln is the classic example.

I would imagine that a wealth tax would be very low in relation to our income tax, probably much lower than 10 percent, something similar to a sales tax. Yes, it would need to be paid annually, so a degree of liquidity would need to be maintained to meet the tax/civic obligation.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

It is well understood that any activity that is taxed suppresses that activity. That is why the government uses taxes to encourage or suppresses given activities in the direction they desire. Very high taxes are levied on cigarettes and alcohol to discourage their use while tax credits are used for activities they want to encourage. Surely you are aware of this.

Some tax is necessary to run the government so some tax on even some activities they desire is needed but if those taxes are high then they discourage the activities they desire.

I would imagine that a wealth tax would be very low in relation to our income tax, probably much lower than 10 percent, something similar to a sales tax. Yes, it would need to be paid annually, so a degree of liquidity would need to be maintained to meet the tax/civic obligation.

A 10% wealth tax would drive such assets to seek tax shelter so likely drive them offshore so away from any benefit of them being in the U.S.

I feel confident that Zuckerberg would move his business rather than pay seven billion/year in wealth tax to the U.S.. Living and operating in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands would certainly not be a sacrifice and would save him the seven billion dollars every year. This would also deprive the US treasury the income taxes he is now paying and the Bahamas or Caymans would be getting it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

^ ^ ^

It is well understood that any activity that is taxed suppresses that activity. That is why the government uses taxes to encourage or suppresses given activities in the direction they desire. Very high taxes are levied on cigarettes and alcohol to discourage their use while tax credits are used for activities they want to encourage. Surely you are aware of this.

Some tax is necessary to run the government so some tax on even some activities they desire is needed but if those taxes are high then they discourage the activities they desire.

I would imagine that a wealth tax would be very low in relation to our income tax, probably much lower than 10 percent, something similar to a sales tax. Yes, it would need to be paid annually, so a degree of liquidity would need to be maintained to meet the tax/civic obligation.

A 10% wealth tax would drive such assets to seek tax shelter so likely drive them offshore so away from any benefit of them being in the U.S.

I feel confident that Zuckerberg would move his business rather than pay seven billion/year in wealth tax to the U.S.. Living and operating in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands would certainly not be a sacrifice and would save him the seven billion dollars every year. This would also deprive the US treasury the income taxes he is now paying and the Bahamas or Caymans would be getting it.

FWIW the US Federal budget in 2015 was 3.8 trillion while net worth was 86.8 trillion. Therefore a rate of 4.4% would cover the federal budget for that year. That's according to wiki. I suppose more current numbers are available.

I guessed it would be well under 10% and it is. It is probably even lower as of today.

The argument seems to be that personal net worth should not correlate with taxes paid. Further, that the extremely wealthy are unable to pay their relative shares simply because they are so wealthy and/or that they will move their wealth into tax free havens offshore. So in the end they get to have high net worth and relatively low taxation.

Who's wealth are all those aircraft carrier battle groups protecting anyway? Must be the those folks with less wealth because they can obviously afford to pay relatively more.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

It is well understood that any activity that is taxed suppresses that activity. That is why the government uses taxes to encourage or suppresses given activities in the direction they desire. Very high taxes are levied on cigarettes and alcohol to discourage their use while tax credits are used for activities they want to encourage. Surely you are aware of this.

Some tax is necessary to run the government so some tax on even some activities they desire is needed but if those taxes are high then they discourage the activities they desire.

I would imagine that a wealth tax would be very low in relation to our income tax, probably much lower than 10 percent, something similar to a sales tax. Yes, it would need to be paid annually, so a degree of liquidity would need to be maintained to meet the tax/civic obligation.

A 10% wealth tax would drive such assets to seek tax shelter so likely drive them offshore so away from any benefit of them being in the U.S.

I feel confident that Zuckerberg would move his business rather than pay seven billion/year in wealth tax to the U.S.. Living and operating in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands would certainly not be a sacrifice and would save him the seven billion dollars every year. This would also deprive the US treasury the income taxes he is now paying and the Bahamas or Caymans would be getting it.

FWIW the US Federal budget in 2015 was 3.8 trillion while net worth was 86.8 trillion. Therefore a rate of 4.4% would cover the federal budget for that year. That's according to wiki. I suppose more current numbers are available.

I guessed it would be well under 10% and it is. It is probably even lower as of today.

The argument seems to be that personal net worth should not correlate with taxes paid. Further, that the extremely wealthy are unable to pay their relative shares simply because they are so wealthy and/or that they will move their wealth into tax free havens offshore. So in the end they get to have high net worth and relatively low taxation.

Who's wealth are all those aircraft carrier battle groups protecting anyway? Must be the those folks with less wealth because they can obviously afford to pay relatively more.

You didn't actually read my post because you certainly didn't actually respond to it.

People change their behavior when the economics change. Levy a 4% wealth tax and people like Zuckerberg would leave the country and avoid paying that 2.8 billion dollars/year - I certainly know that I would leave for a more tax friendly country if it would save me that much. The treasury would not only not get that 2.8 billion/year but they would also loose the hefty income tax revenue he pays each year.

 

[laughing dog]

I would imagine that a wealth tax would be very low in relation to our income tax, probably much lower than 10 percent, something similar to a sales tax. Yes, it would need to be paid annually, so a degree of liquidity would need to be maintained to meet the tax/civic obligation.

Not that I am proposing a tax on wealth, but the French had one until very recently. It was a graduated tax with a maximum rate of 1.5% and the tax liability could not exceed 75% of the taxpayers income.

 

[Canard DuJour]

It is well understood that any activity that is taxed suppresses that activity.

Hmm.. real wealth grew faster when corporate and marginal tax rates were much higher. The wealthiest and most entrepreneurial developed economies are still some of the most redistributive.

Not that govt needs tax money to spend, but capitalism runs first and foremost on sales, i.e. consumers with disposable income. Redistribution via taxation has proven to be an effective means of maintaining and stimulating that.

 

[lpetrich]

From Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) | Twitter:

CSPAN on Twitter: "First House Floor speech from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC): “The truth of this shutdown is that it's actually not about a wall...The truth is, this shutdown is about the erosion of American democracy and the subversion of our most basic governmental norms."… https://t.co/HJtpPy7Zpy"
I think that she's right about that. If nothing else, pResident Trump has distinguished himself with sheer assholishness.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Oh. My. Goodness. Did #WheresMitch wait until House members had to leave DC for their district weekend to show up? AND he’s calling votes on stripping women’s rights before he’s calling votes on reopening government! He’s hiding. ¡Qué cosa!… https://t.co/VYOa47uN3W"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Gotta love it when the folks calling activists getting arrested to advance equal rights “snowflakes” turn around and get offended by things like coffee cups + razor commercials… https://t.co/XO4VHCK7Qa"
responding to
NPR on Twitter: "Gillette's trending new ad campaign, “The Best Men Can Be,” has many more dislikes than likes on YouTube. Some threaten boycotting, offended by the company's call for a new kind of masculinity. https://t.co/wUjDgRaqsw"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This photo looks like a Spice Girls album cover, but for reopening the government cc: @RepJahanaHayes @KatieHill4CA @LaurenUnderwood https://t.co/zYcKdoAfHN" -- her and two other Congresswomen

Sarah Lerner on Twitter: ".@AOC: “The idea that a freshman member could come in and be effective by doing things differently was just so cynically dismissed for so long.” [url]https://t.co/vYhUbTv7iD… https://t.co/JSFiGE9sxV"[/url] -- on AOC's success at shaping debates on policy.

Ola Salem on Twitter: "On Instagram stories right now @AOC explains to her followers (while making lasagna soup, I believe) that the Government shutdown is no longer about Democrats vs Republicans, but “Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump versus the rest of the country”.… https://t.co/Ymu4p2PGTI"

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Looks like #WheresMitch is also running away from #HR1 (a voting rights bill I proudly cosponsored with **225** Democrats) too.… https://t.co/PL21O6IONc"
Robert Reich on Twitter: "Mitch McConnell calls #HR1 a "power grab" because it would: 1) Begin to overturn Citizens United. 2) Establish Automatic Voter Registration. 3) Bolster anti-bribery laws. 4) Protect the Voting Rights Act. Yes. It's a "power grab" -- grabbing power back for the people."
AOC has been referring to him as #WheresMitch on account of his very convenient running away.

NowThis on Twitter: "'Oftentimes the most righteous thing you can do is shake the table.' — Watch @AOC's inspiring Women's March speech #WomensWave #WomensMarch2019… https://t.co/VCbd8oB7cD"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Let’s dig into “gravitas,” bc it’s an ambiguous word, selectively applied. Ever wonder how expression that’s feminine, working-class, queer, or poc isn’t deemed as having “gravitas,” but talking like an Aaron Sorkin character does? Men have “gravitas,” women get “likeable.”… https://t.co/7hZ7Z2uqdI"
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This has deeper consequences, bc as we’ve seen w/ narratives advanced by the right, they have trouble recognizing intelligence in people they disagree with. This is what bias looks like: for some ppl, small mistakes mean they’re not “serious,” yet others are forgiven for worse."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "If you notice, on the right they’ll flatly call people blanket terms, and even make things up. And I don’t mean trolls - I mean their biggest commentators + TV figures. This is different from criticizing a specific take you disagree with, or pointing out discriminatory patterns."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Just look at the marginal tax rate discussion. The right’s biggest strategy against my marginal tax rate proposal isn’t to argue against it - it‘s to lie about it, and imply that it’s a tax on all income, bc that helps their characterization of me as a “crazy/dumb“ Latina woman."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This stuff infects some Democrats, too. Because in our overall discourse, nonviolent protest somehow gets deemed as not “civil,” yet stripping women’s rights or incarcerating children on the border doesn’t receive the same characterization. What’s up with that?*"
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Lastly, we wouldn’t need to talk about bathrooms at all if we acted like adults, washed our hands + minded our own business instead of trying to clock others. Going by track record, I’d feel safer in a bathroom w/ a trans woman than a powerful male executive any day of the week."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The odds of me making over $10 million in one year while serving in public office are probably as slim as the odds of the GOP ever understanding what a marginal tax rate is. But if it ever got to that, I’d be happy to contribute more for our bridges, teachers, and firefighters.… https://t.co/Ica2rdE8s2"
Which got this response:
David Webb on Twitter: "When you pay willingly pay 70% marginal tax rate and provide proof, I'll think about it. Live up to your words. I dare you.… "

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not my intention to discourage the creation of wealth. I do not see how a wealth tax would discourage the creation of wealth anymore than an income tax discourages the creation of income, or a property tax discourages owning a home.

When you make something less attractive (in this case, by taxing it, thus reducing the benefit) you get less of it. Human nature 101.

I would imagine that a wealth tax would be very low in relation to our income tax, probably much lower than 10 percent, something similar to a sales tax. Yes, it would need to be paid annually, so a degree of liquidity would need to be maintained to meet the tax/civic obligation.

And startups would be in a world of hurt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FWIW the US Federal budget in 2015 was 3.8 trillion while net worth was 86.8 trillion. Therefore a rate of 4.4% would cover the federal budget for that year. That's according to wiki. I suppose more current numbers are available.

I guessed it would be well under 10% and it is. It is probably even lower as of today.

The argument seems to be that personal net worth should not correlate with taxes paid. Further, that the extremely wealthy are unable to pay their relative shares simply because they are so wealthy and/or that they will move their wealth into tax free havens offshore. So in the end they get to have high net worth and relatively low taxation.

Who's wealth are all those aircraft carrier battle groups protecting anyway? Must be the those folks with less wealth because they can obviously afford to pay relatively more.

I get it, yet another version of eat the rich.

Your numbers would require about a 5% wealth tax. I hope you like your housing payment doubling. Unlike leftist illusion, most people own some wealth.

(And don't say you live in an apartment. The landlord is going to double his rent to pay the wealth tax.)