Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[J842P]

While I don't have a problem with wealthier people paying a higher tax rate, I am really sick of people misrepresenting what the actual percentage that very wealthy people paid in the 1950s was.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

No one is misrepresenting this. Everyone who talks about this already knows the difference between the marginal tax rate and the effective taxes people actually paid. This is a total non sequitur.

So, the reality is that the top .1% only paid a little higher percentage than they do today. Can we at least be honest if we want to discuss tax rates? Look at the graph in my link to see the actual average rates that the top percentage pays. So, going by that, a rate of about 42% on the top 1 % would be reasonable if you want to go back to the 1950s rate.

Do you seriously believe that top income earners today pay anywhere close to the 39% top marginal tax rate of today? Can you be honest?

 

[skepticalbip]

While I don't have a problem with wealthier people paying a higher tax rate, I am really sick of people misrepresenting what the actual percentage that very wealthy people paid in the 1950s was.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

No one is misrepresenting this. Everyone who talks about this already knows the difference between the marginal tax rate and the effective taxes people actually paid. This is a total non sequitur.

I disagree. I don't think that those who avidly support AOC's 70% marginal tax rate understand it as a 70% marginal tax rate with enough exemptions added to make the actual marginal tax rate 42%. My impression of the arguments from those avid supporters is "we need to get those bastards".

 

[PyramidHead]

While I don't have a problem with wealthier people paying a higher tax rate, I am really sick of people misrepresenting what the actual percentage that very wealthy people paid in the 1950s was.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

No one is misrepresenting this. Everyone who talks about this already knows the difference between the marginal tax rate and the effective taxes people actually paid. This is a total non sequitur.

I disagree. I don't think that those who avidly support AOC's 70% marginal tax rate understand it as a 70% marginal tax rate with enough exemptions added to make the actual marginal tax rate 42%. My impression of the arguments from those avid supporters is "we need to get those bastards".

Couldn't we just... not add the exemptions, then?

 

[skepticalbip]

I disagree. I don't think that those who avidly support AOC's 70% marginal tax rate understand it as a 70% marginal tax rate with enough exemptions added to make the actual marginal tax rate 42%. My impression of the arguments from those avid supporters is "we need to get those bastards".

Couldn't we just... not add the exemptions, then?

Sure we can if the goal is to "get those bastards" and collapse the economy.

 

[PyramidHead]

I disagree. I don't think that those who avidly support AOC's 70% marginal tax rate understand it as a 70% marginal tax rate with enough exemptions added to make the actual marginal tax rate 42%. My impression of the arguments from those avid supporters is "we need to get those bastards".

Couldn't we just... not add the exemptions, then?

Sure we can if the goal is to "get those bastards" and collapse the economy.

Any evidence that this would take place? Fairy tales about golden eggs don't count, just to get that out of the way.

 

[southernhybrid]

While I don't have a problem with wealthier people paying a higher tax rate, I am really sick of people misrepresenting what the actual percentage that very wealthy people paid in the 1950s was.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

No one is misrepresenting this. Everyone who talks about this already knows the difference between the marginal tax rate and the effective taxes people actually paid. This is a total non sequitur.

So, the reality is that the top .1% only paid a little higher percentage than they do today. Can we at least be honest if we want to discuss tax rates? Look at the graph in my link to see the actual average rates that the top percentage pays. So, going by that, a rate of about 42% on the top 1 % would be reasonable if you want to go back to the 1950s rate.

Do you seriously believe that top income earners today pay anywhere close to the 39% top marginal tax rate of today? Can you be honest?

I'm glad that you know the reality, so you're not the one who I'm referring to in this case. You're just the first person who I've seen that said this. What I almost always see or hear is, "The tax rate on the wealthy was over 90% in the 1950s. The reality is that nobody paid that rate. Look at the graph in the link. It gives the average of what the upper 1% pay. Of course, if all of their income was from long term capital gains, the upper rate is 20%. That may or may not be a good idea, depending on whether or not you believe that having a lower rate on capital gains has a positive influence on investment.

I don't know anyone in the top 1%, so I really have no idea what most of them pay, other than by looking at statistical analysis. It's difficult to always know if the sources are accurate or not, but I really doubt that the top 1% ever paid that much more tax than they do these days.
I like AOC. I'd just prefer that she be more accurate in her claims.

Update. The average was 36.4% in 2014 for the top 1%. It's down to about 27 or so percent in 2017, thanks to our Republican Congress and president. But the upper top percent still pay the majority of the total amount of taxes. I'm not claiming this is a good thing. I'm just trying to figure out what a reasonable rate would be. And what rate could ever be able to pass into law.

 

[ZiprHead]

I disagree. I don't think that those who avidly support AOC's 70% marginal tax rate understand it as a 70% marginal tax rate with enough exemptions added to make the actual marginal tax rate 42%. My impression of the arguments from those avid supporters is "we need to get those bastards".

Couldn't we just... not add the exemptions, then?

Sure we can if the goal is to "get those bastards" and collapse the economy.

Did the economy collapse in the fifties and sixties when the CEO class was getting far less remuneration?

 

[Toni]

AOC has mentioned Jesus Christ's parents as refugees, fleeing to protect their baby boy.

But they weren't. This chick is dumb, dude.

Yeah. They were.

She's not the one who is 'dumb.'

 

[Trausti]

AOC has mentioned Jesus Christ's parents as refugees, fleeing to protect their baby boy.

But they weren't. This chick is dumb, dude.

Yeah. They were.

She's not the one who is 'dumb.'

Holy shit. They went to Bethlehem by decree of the emperor for the census. Whether you believe the story or not, that's the story. Jesus H. Christ.

 

[laughing dog]

While I don't have a problem with wealthier people paying a higher tax rate, I am really sick of people misrepresenting what the actual percentage that very wealthy people paid in the 1950s was.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

No one is misrepresenting this. Everyone who talks about this already knows the difference between the marginal tax rate and the effective taxes people actually paid. This is a total non sequitur.

I disagree. I don't think that those who avidly support AOC's 70% marginal tax rate understand it as a 70% marginal tax rate with enough exemptions added to make the actual marginal tax rate 42%. My impression of the arguments from those avid supporters is "we need to get those bastards".

Even if that is your impression, an effective marginal rate of 42% would be "getting those bastards" when compared to current effective marginal rates.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure we can if the goal is to "get those bastards" and collapse the economy.

Did the economy collapse in the fifties and sixties when the CEO class was getting far less remuneration?

I thought MAGA meant taking us back to the 50s and 60s!

 

[skepticalbip]

I disagree. I don't think that those who avidly support AOC's 70% marginal tax rate understand it as a 70% marginal tax rate with enough exemptions added to make the actual marginal tax rate 42%. My impression of the arguments from those avid supporters is "we need to get those bastards".

Even if that is your impression, an effective marginal rate of 42% would be "getting those bastards" when compared to current effective marginal rates.

Any proposal of a tax system aimed at "getting those bastards" should be ignored or rejected outright. Tax policy should be only based on financing the government, even if this is best accomplished by benefiting "those bastards". Whether any tax proposal best accomplishes financing the government is, of course, open to debate but should never be based on punishing any sector.

 

[Elixir]

Sure we can if the goal is to "get those bastards" and collapse the economy.

Any evidence that this would take place? Fairy tales about golden eggs don't count, just to get that out of the way.

Indeed. I have yet to see anything to indicate that over-feeding the rich helps "the economy" or that saddling them with high marginal tax rates hurts it. Nevertheless, that mantra persists. Even among non-billionaires.
Weird.

 

[laughing dog]

I disagree. I don't think that those who avidly support AOC's 70% marginal tax rate understand it as a 70% marginal tax rate with enough exemptions added to make the actual marginal tax rate 42%. My impression of the arguments from those avid supporters is "we need to get those bastards".

Even if that is your impression, an effective marginal rate of 42% would be "getting those bastards" when compared to current effective marginal rates.

Any proposal of a tax system aimed at "getting those bastards" should be ignored or rejected outright. Tax policy should be only based on financing the government, even if this is best accomplished by benefiting "those bastards".

Your view is not widely shared. Tax policy can be used to alter the after-tax distribution of income to make it more or less equitable from a social point of view.

 

[Derec]

Holy shit. They went to Bethlehem by decree of the emperor for the census. Whether you believe the story or not, that's the story. Jesus H. Christ.

That's the other story. Luke's story. Matthew's story has no census.
Which should tell you it's all fiction from 2000 years ago and thus does not form a solid basis for public policy.

 

[Derec]

Kinda sounds refugee-ish to me.

Sounds like "Matthew" made it up in order to shoehorn yet another "prophecy". Besides, that was one family that Egypt could well handle. Not millions of people from cultures very incompatible with US or European cultures. Also, most of them are not fleeing crazy kings but are seeking either jobs or benefits. It would be like them going to Egypt because carpenters can make much more there than in Judah ...

It's time to play Name That Fallacy. Is it:

a) Moving the Goalposts

b) No True Scotsman

Neither of those. The fallacies are on AOC's part.

a) If Matthew made up this part of the story to shoehorn a "prophecy" ("out of Egypt I have called my son", a line that actually refers to the Exodus) then it cannot really be used to make other points. It neither happened in history nor did "Matthew" really want to tell a story of a family fleeing royal persecution.

b) Note what is happening in the story here. You have a single family seeking refuge in Egypt (part of Roman Empire at the time, with Israel being a client kingdom ruled by Herod the Great) because of identifiable persecution by the powers that be. That actually is the kind of thing the modern asylum system was originally designed to address. It was not designed to facilitate mass migration of millions of people. It was not meant to be used for people suffering domestic violence or lack of well-paying jobs. It was not meant to allow families to send their sons to rich countries in Western Europe or to United States so they can support the rest of their family with remittances.
So the story does not really support the Left's position on mass migration anyway, even if it was historical.

 

[Derec]

OACDS???

Best I could find is some dental school in India. No idea what blastula had in mind.

I agree that that story is pure fiction, like the related story of King Herod's mass murder of those baby boys. But it's the content of that story that is important -- Jesus Christ's parents fleeing a mass murderer to protect their baby boy.

Yes, one family fleeing actual persecution by the ruler of the country. Not millions of young men from Pakistan or Nigeria traveling to Sweden and Germany because they can get better paying jobs and/or social services. Not barely literate farmers from Honduras or Guatemala illegally entering US to send money back to their families so they can build a house or something.

 

[Elixir]

OACDS???

Best I could find is some dental school in India. No idea what blastula had in mind.

Yeah OAC Derangement Syndrome is hard to see from the inside.

 

[blastula]

Yeah. They were.

She's not the one who is 'dumb.'

Holy shit. They went to Bethlehem by decree of the emperor for the census. Whether you believe the story or not, that's the story. Jesus H. Christ.

AOCDS kills brain cells. You should have gone for the only slightly better take, "Egypt was in the Roman empire."

 

[Derec]

Yeah OAC Derangement Syndrome is hard to see from the inside.

Explaining why her "Jesus fled to Egypt so we must open our borders to everybody who wants to come in" analogy does not hold water is not "derangement syndrome".