Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I think he read it--they are just inherently incapable of understanding that their eat the rich schemes don't work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

And it resulted in startups avoiding the country. As usual, the prey reacts to being eaten and you don't get nearly as much as you envision when you assume it doesn't react.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times loophole rates were explained to your side, it's always in one ear and out the other.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

I think he read it--they are just inherently incapable of understanding that their eat the rich schemes don't work.

Well if the schemes are to bring down the rich, then it has worked but the countries that did it also ended up bringing down the middle class and poor too because the wealth of the rich is the industries that provide jobs and income for the rest of the country. Depriving the rich of their wealth is easy if someone's goal is to "get those bastards" but there are severe consequences that they don't seem to think through. Zimbabwe certainly "got those bastards" and several other countries have too.

They seem to think of wealth as a six year old would, Scrooge McDuck swimming in a massive vault full of gold coins rather than as a large manufacturing plant providing jobs and income for thousands.

 

[lpetrich]

What is the real story? That rich people suffer great agonies about how they will make their yacht payments each month?

 

[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.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times loophole rates were explained to your side, it's always in one ear and out the other.

It just ain't that relevant. Unless they were actually paying less, the point stands. Nor is it relevant to international comparisons (there is, astonishingly, a world outside the US). Real world evidence does not support the simple relation posited above and suggests that demand is far more important.

 

[lpetrich]

AOC herself responds:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "It’s wild that some people are more scared of a marginal tax rate than the fact that 40% of Americans struggle to pay for at least one basic need, like food or rent. Imagine if we focused positively, away from fear of the former toward solving the latter. https://t.co/91SoKmhGxx"
She linked to
Davos billionaires are 'scared' of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tax proposal

The 70 percent tax rate on earnings above $10 million proposed by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has the elite financiers attending Davos worried.

“By the time we get to the presidential election, this is going to gain more momentum,” says Scott Minerd, global chief investment officer for $265 billion Guggenheim Partners.

“It’s not going to happen – trust me,” says one billionaire.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I think he read it--they are just inherently incapable of understanding that their eat the rich schemes don't work.

Actually, the "eat the rich" schemes were called revolutions and they did work quite well at beheading the aristocracy. The "eat the rich" was just a metaphor.

Meanwhile, what good is money that is withheld from the economy? When a person is so wealthy they can almost not become unwealthy, that is a position of having too much money and should require additional roles in the economy or governance if they don't want to be 'eaten'.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times loophole rates were explained to your side, it's always in one ear and out the other.

A poor person is given a cell phone and the right-wing shits their pants.

 

[PyramidHead]

The economy needs to be restructured so that people who generate wealth (workers) no longer have to rely on rich oligarchs for their livelihood. On a material level, we don't need them anyway. We can just do whatever needs to be done ourselves and they can go piss off. But officially, that runs afoul of property rights so nobody considers it an option. Meanwhile, the world's 26 richest people have as much wealth as the bottom 3.8 billion humans on the planet and intend to keep it by threatening to leave the country unless you let them--even though they won't actually leave the country as much as they say, since much more goes into that decision than just the prevailing marginal tax rate on income.

We can talk about being polite to rich people so as not to frighten them away, but I'm in favor of taking back our stuff and getting on with the business of helping each other survive and thrive. Return the commons to the commoners, expropriate the profits that have been stolen from workers, shut down the financial sector entirely, and allow the majority of people to survive without being rented by rich people, which itself is only a slight improvement over being owned by them.

If nothing else, having more candidates like AOC to take the place of the literal fucking goblin boomers who have ruined the world and poisoned everybody's brain with neoliberalism will make that kind of change slightly more likely, but in any case it will probably be too late since the global temperature will continue to rise on average and we'll be too busy fighting each other in bloody border disputes to remember that we're human beings and not tools for commodity production.

 

[Trausti]

Ah, the politics of envy.

 

[lpetrich]

Ah, the politics of envy.

So if you don't like being stolen from, it is because you envy thieves?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It doesn't seem to matter how many times loophole rates were explained to your side, it's always in one ear and out the other.

It just ain't that relevant. Unless they were actually paying less, the point stands. Nor is it relevant to international comparisons (there is, astonishingly, a world outside the US). Real world evidence does not support the simple relation posited above and suggests that demand is far more important.

We have no idea what they were paying. Thus arguments based on their paying more back then are invalid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, the "eat the rich" schemes were called revolutions and they did work quite well at beheading the aristocracy. The "eat the rich" was just a metaphor.

With devastating consequences for the countries that took this route.

Meanwhile, what good is money that is withheld from the economy? When a person is so wealthy they can almost not become unwealthy, that is a position of having too much money and should require additional roles in the economy or governance if they don't want to be 'eaten'.

Thus showing you do not understand the issue. The rich don't pull money out of the economy and stick it under a mattress (and if they did the answer would be easy--inject an equal amount of money into the economy.) That wealth isn't a pile of cash, it's businesses. Take that away and nobody's going to be interested in making more such businesses.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times loophole rates were explained to your side, it's always in one ear and out the other.

A poor person is given a cell phone and the right-wing shits their pants.

Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Are you going to start spouting propaganda like untermenche?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The economy needs to be restructured so that people who generate wealth (workers) no longer have to rely on rich oligarchs for their livelihood. On a material level, we don't need them anyway. We can just do whatever needs to be done ourselves and they can go piss off. But officially, that runs afoul of property rights so nobody considers it an option.

Nobody sane considers it an option because it brings progress to a screeching halt. If you can't profit by making a business people won't make businesses. The population is growing, we need more businesses to provide more jobs. Businesses from time to time fail, we need replacements.

Meanwhile, the world's 26 richest people have as much wealth as the bottom 3.8 billion humans on the planet and intend to keep it by threatening to leave the country unless you let them--even though they won't actually leave the country as much as they say, since much more goes into that decision than just the prevailing marginal tax rate on income.

If you assume anything from Oxfam is propaganda you'll rarely be wrong. You realize that most recent college graduates have negative net worth? And that "poorest 50%" is a clear case of lying with statistics--they're counting the negative net worth to get that number. One college graduate with $100k in student loans, 8 people with $10k each, one retiree with $100k. By their reasoning the top 10% has as much wealth as the bottom 90%.

We can talk about being polite to rich people so as not to frighten them away, but I'm in favor of taking back our stuff and getting on with the business of helping each other survive and thrive. Return the commons to the commoners, expropriate the profits that have been stolen from workers, shut down the financial sector entirely, and allow the majority of people to survive without being rented by rich people, which itself is only a slight improvement over being owned by them.

I am in favor of continuing to live. I think that would be unlikely in your world.

 

[Toni]

Nobody sane considers it an option because it brings progress to a screeching halt. If you can't profit by making a business people won't make businesses. The population is growing, we need more businesses to provide more jobs. Businesses from time to time fail, we need replacements.



If you assume anything from Oxfam is propaganda you'll rarely be wrong. You realize that most recent college graduates have negative net worth? And that "poorest 50%" is a clear case of lying with statistics--they're counting the negative net worth to get that number. One college graduate with $100k in student loans, 8 people with $10k each, one retiree with $100k. By their reasoning the top 10% has as much wealth as the bottom 90%.

We can talk about being polite to rich people so as not to frighten them away, but I'm in favor of taking back our stuff and getting on with the business of helping each other survive and thrive. Return the commons to the commoners, expropriate the profits that have been stolen from workers, shut down the financial sector entirely, and allow the majority of people to survive without being rented by rich people, which itself is only a slight improvement over being owned by them.

I am in favor of continuing to live. I think that would be unlikely in your world.

First of all, Loren, if you had been keeping up even a tiny bit, you would realize that the US population growth has slowed dramatically. This would be one reason we should welcome all those fertile ready to reproduce brown people into our country.

If you had been paying any attention at all you would realize that income disparity has reached horrific and dangerous levels in this country.

If you had been paying any attention at all you would realize that paying workers too little to be able to live decent lives while the handful of uber wealthy individuals buy whatever they like, including elections and freedom from prosecution and legislation that guarantees their ability to continue to amass wealth greater than their ability to spend or the ability of the next several generations of uberwealthy to spend then you would realize that this is actually one of those conditions that lead to serious and bloody revolution.

I would think you would be against that.

I would also think that some portion of your lizard brain would realize that having opted not to reproduce, your interest in what is happening is...not very compelling. Your own self interest should be in favor of paying people well enough to help maintain you in your old age home without them feeling compelled or entitled to pilfer from you in order to survive or buy their kids shoes. Or go to college.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nobody sane considers it an option because it brings progress to a screeching halt. If you can't profit by making a business people won't make businesses. The population is growing, we need more businesses to provide more jobs. Businesses from time to time fail, we need replacements.



If you assume anything from Oxfam is propaganda you'll rarely be wrong. You realize that most recent college graduates have negative net worth? And that "poorest 50%" is a clear case of lying with statistics--they're counting the negative net worth to get that number. One college graduate with $100k in student loans, 8 people with $10k each, one retiree with $100k. By their reasoning the top 10% has as much wealth as the bottom 90%.

We can talk about being polite to rich people so as not to frighten them away, but I'm in favor of taking back our stuff and getting on with the business of helping each other survive and thrive. Return the commons to the commoners, expropriate the profits that have been stolen from workers, shut down the financial sector entirely, and allow the majority of people to survive without being rented by rich people, which itself is only a slight improvement over being owned by them.

I am in favor of continuing to live. I think that would be unlikely in your world.

First of all, Loren, if you had been keeping up even a tiny bit, you would realize that the US population growth has slowed dramatically. This would be one reason we should welcome all those fertile ready to reproduce brown people into our country.

You have just jumped to a topic that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. But, since you brought it up. The US does recognize that immigration is beneficial... that is why the US has for some time now welcomed over a million immigrants each year into the country through the legal immigration program and given them a path to citizenship. The U.S. has one of the most liberal legal immigration policies in the world. All the current political immigration BS going on is over illegal immigration.

If you had been paying any attention at all you would realize that income disparity has reached horrific and dangerous levels in this country.

How the fuck did disparity become a thing rather than concern for the living standards of the poorest? Our system has made the living standard of the 'poor' in the US above the living standards of the middle class in most of the world. According to the World Health Organization, there is no poverty in the US. You probably need to visit a few other countries so you can appreciate just how privileged people in the U.S. actually are, even the ‘poor’.

If you had been paying any attention at all you would realize that paying workers too little to be able to live decent lives while the handful of uber wealthy individuals buy whatever they like, including elections and freedom from prosecution and legislation that guarantees their ability to continue to amass wealth greater than their ability to spend or the ability of the next several generations of uberwealthy to spend then you would realize that this is actually one of those conditions that lead to serious and bloody revolution.

Damned, still wallowing in classism rather than recognizing how fucking well even the ‘poor’ are provided for by our system when compared to the rest of the world.

I would also think that some portion of your lizard brain would realize that having opted not to reproduce, your interest in what is happening is...not very compelling. Your own self interest should be in favor of paying people well enough to help maintain you in your old age home without them feeling compelled or entitled to pilfer from you in order to survive or buy their kids shoes. Or go to college.

WTF? Apparently Loren prefers rationalism over emotionalism.

 

[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.

And it resulted in startups avoiding the country. As usual, the prey reacts to being eaten and you don't get nearly as much as you envision when you assume it doesn't react.

Please cite the study or studies that corroborate the fact that the French wealth tax all by itself resulted in startups avoiding the country. I am truly interested in your source(s).

 

[laughing dog]

It doesn't seem to matter how many times loophole rates were explained to your side, it's always in one ear and out the other.

It just ain't that relevant. Unless they were actually paying less, the point stands. Nor is it relevant to international comparisons (there is, astonishingly, a world outside the US). Real world evidence does not support the simple relation posited above and suggests that demand is far more important.

We have no idea what they were paying. Thus arguments based on their paying more back then are invalid.

There are plenty of studies analyzing effective income tax rates for that era. Joseph Pechman's Federal Tax Policy (now out of print) had excellent analysis. I don't have access to it at this writing, but I will find it tomorrow.

Anyway, this link https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ has a graph of the average effective tax rates for the top 1%. Their estimates indicate that the top 1% had an average effective tax rate of 45% in 1945 (the peak) and an average effective tax rate of 36.4% in 2014.

 

[blastula]

https://twitter.com/AlexMLeo/status/1087882176098639872

 

[Canard DuJour]

It doesn't seem to matter how many times loophole rates were explained to your side, it's always in one ear and out the other.

It just ain't that relevant. Unless they were actually paying less, the point stands. Nor is it relevant to international comparisons (there is, astonishingly, a world outside the US). Real world evidence does not support the simple relation posited above and suggests that demand is far more important.

We have no idea what they were paying. Thus arguments based on their paying more back then are invalid.

Yeah we do and they were paying more. Ditto other OECD countries, ditto current comparisons of tax rates and proportions of GDP public spending.