Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't do either of those things, but I have known middle class people that resented poor people who received public assistance. I've never understood that. Maybe they are people with miserable lives who resent anyone getting something that they don't get. A lot of it is due to ignorance. Most people that I talk to don't even know the first thing about the TANF program, or that most people who receive SNAP benefits are either disabled, older adults or the working poor.

I think it's because of the fraud. We buy most of our produce from a couple of Hispanic markets here--and the number of people we see using EBT to buy expensive food is huge. Said people are also very often talking on expensive cell phones in the checkout.

Now, there are legitimate reasons at times but not for the frequency with which we observe it.

I've never known of anyone who claimed that we shouldn't tax the wealthy because of loopholes,

Nobody has claimed that. What we have said is that the left loves to use the argument that things were ok when we taxed them at that rate, but that's false because they weren't really taxed at that rate.

I haven't itemized deductions since we paid off our mortgage many years ago, and we live in a low tax state. But, I know that the liberals in high tax states, like my sister in NJ, are extremely upset because they can no longer deduct the full amount of their real estate taxes. etc. The vast majority of these people aren't wealthy. My sister is middle class with a decent income, but she lives in a very expensive state. Getting rid of all deductions sounds great, but it would be very hard to accomplish. And, people who live in very expensive states like NJ and California would probably be hurt the most. Change never comes easy, does it?

The whole point of deductions is to avoid double-taxing. What we need to do is quit messing with them for political reasons. It's deductible if it's a tax $ and I would leave the medical and casualty deductions but remove the income threshold they currently have. Furthermore, we need to undo all the crap that took employer-paid expenses and pushed them into personal income and made them deductible.

 

[Trausti]

It's funny to me how the fact that rich people will find ways to avoid paying taxes is used as an argument for why we shouldn't tax them. Like, okay, we gave it our best shot and it turns out it'll never work because of loopholes, onto the next idea. But when someone sees a welfare recipient buying a bag of Doritos it's suddenly "maybe we should invent microchips that go into the Doritos and prevent them from being ingested by poor people"

No. What we are saying is that the "it worked before" argument is wrong because people didn't actually pay those rates.

The amount of tax money actually collected is about the same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

 

[laughing dog]

It's funny to me how the fact that rich people will find ways to avoid paying taxes is used as an argument for why we shouldn't tax them. Like, okay, we gave it our best shot and it turns out it'll never work because of loopholes, onto the next idea. But when someone sees a welfare recipient buying a bag of Doritos it's suddenly "maybe we should invent microchips that go into the Doritos and prevent them from being ingested by poor people"

No. What we are saying is that the "it worked before" argument is wrong because people didn't actually pay those rates.

The amount of tax money actually collected is about the same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

An irrelevant comparison, since the tax changes over the past 30 years have been notionally designed to keep revenues about the same. More importantly, the relevant comparison is what would have been the tax collections without the changes. Finally, if the revenue is about the same, what's the fuss about reverting back to the more progressive income tax?

 

[skepticalbip]

It's true that the highest rate was about 91%, but from what I've read, nobody paid that rate due to deductions etc. After deductions, the highest rate was about 50%, still much higher than today. But, even AOC has said that the 70% rate would only apply to those making over 10 million per year and that would be before deductions. It's an interesting thing to discuss, even though it's unrealistic to expect it will ever be passed into law.

Everybody remembers what they want to about the "good ole days".

Very true that people have very selective memory when it comes to the good ole days! I think that it would be better to eliminate all deductions and then implement a more politically acceptable tax rate that would be accepted by a majority. Fox news is very good at twisting the truth.

It's funny to me how the fact that rich people will find ways to avoid paying taxes is used as an argument for why we shouldn't tax them. Like, okay, we gave it our best shot and it turns out it'll never work because of loopholes, onto the next idea. But when someone sees a welfare recipient buying a bag of Doritos it's suddenly "maybe we should invent microchips that go into the Doritos and prevent them from being ingested by poor people"

The argument is because the point should be to maximize tax revenue taken in not to maximize tax rate. When U.S. corporate tax rate was so much higher than the world average (before the latest tax cut), many companies moved their operations out of the country to where taxes were lower. The government lost all the tax revenue from those operations plus the tax from what the employees would have earned if they had not been unemployed since their plant closed.

Those who think higher taxes will always increase the tax revenue received try to claim the Laffer Curve (if they had ever heard of it) is nonsense but reality demonstrates otherwise.

 

[laughing dog]

The argument is because the point should be to maximize tax revenue taken in not to maximize tax rate.

There is no universal agreement that the point should be to maximize tax revenue, especially with the income tax. There is a redistributive effect as well.

When U.S. corporate tax rate was so much higher than the world average (before the latest tax cut), many companies moved their operations out of the country to where taxes were lower. The government lost all the tax revenue from those operations plus the tax from what the employees would have earned if they had not been unemployment.

During that time, the effective corporate tax rate for most corporation was lower than the world average.

Those who think higher taxes will always increase the tax revenue received try to claim the Laffer Curve is nonsense but reality demonstrates otherwise.

Are you referring to some unnamed studies or what?

 

[ZiprHead]

SouthernHybrid noted AOC's 70% top tax rate proposal. I posted above a link to part of her "New Green Deal" proposal.

Funny that the GOP fearmongers about the high tax rate, when it was higher in the ‘good old days’ they want to go back to..... or was it something else about those times that they miss?

Or some are referring to the guilded age as the good old days

Back then there were so many loopholes it looked like Swiss cheese. Most people didn't actually pay those high rates. (But we will never know the true data as most of the issue was dodges that kept it from being reported as income in the first place, thus there's nothing in the IRS records to use to figure it out.)

The very rich didn't pay those high rates because, instead of paying that rate, they put their money back into their businesses or paid their employees more. That's why back then, CEOs made only thirty times what the worker under them made. Today, CEOs make 1000 times more and many times even more than that. Low tax rates on the 1% equals fuck over the worker.

 

[lpetrich]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez On 60 Minutes: "Push Our Technological Capacities To The Furthest Extent Possible" | CleanTechnica

Zero carbon emissions. No use of fossil fuels. All within 12 years. It was politics and climate change action that Anderson Cooper used to frame his interview with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on a January 6, 2019 segment of 60 Minutes. “That is the goal,” she responded. “It is ambitious.”

Also has some of that interview. After she described having a tax rate that increased with income, the interview got into how "radical" it was.

“What you are talking about in this big picture is a radical agenda compared to the way that politics is done right now,” Cooper noted.

“Well,” she inhaled as the camera zoomed in on her face, “I think that it only has only ever been ‘radicals’ that have changed this country. Abraham Lincoln made the radical decision to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the radical decision to embark on establishing programs like the Social Security.” The camera moves back to capture her full torso.

“Do you call yourself a ‘radical’?” he asked, revisiting the adjective that he used to frame her positioning in his previous question.

“Yeah, you know, if that’s what radical means, call me a ‘radical’.”

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Climate change may be our biggest problem right now. The biggest problem for the human species. If we aren't doing anything radical about solving it, we're hosed.

 

[Canard DuJour]

OCS, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Elizabeth Warren... aren't going to get anywhere until they challenge the utterly false idea that public spending is funded by taxes and bond issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IBEoWSiTHc

 

[poster]

OCS, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Elizabeth Warren... aren't going to get anywhere until they challenge the utterly false idea that public spending is funded by taxes and bond issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IBEoWSiTHc

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed watching.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think it's because of the fraud. We buy most of our produce from a couple of Hispanic markets here--and the number of people we see using EBT to buy expensive food is huge. Said people are also very often talking on expensive cell phones in the checkout.

This thread is going in all different directions but let me at least respond to this. No. I don't think fraud has much if anything to do with it. And, I'm skeptical of your remark that you often see people buying expensive things with EBT. Did you mean SNAP, the benefit that provides help with food? EBT payments average 125 per month. I think that refers to cash payments. They are hard to get, limited to a five years and aren't the same as SNAP, so I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

But, I do have a 39 year old friend who receives SNAP benefits. She has four school age children living at home and a husband who works full-time. They do have phones but they are on her mother's plan and I have no idea how much her phones cost her or if they were a gift. How do you know the circumstances of these people's lives that you see in the grocery store? You don't.

Some would say that my friend should never have had so many children. Well, she actually had six, but two are grown and she was 15 when she had the first one. Maybe if funds for public health programs had not been cut so much, and if she had received more support and a better education, she would have started using birth control at an earlier age. Maybe she would have gone on to further her education. Her husband is a very nice man, who isn't educated and probably doesn't have the intelligence to further his education. He works as a fork life operator. He takes any over time that is offered to him. He's a good father and husband. I've never asked my friend why she doesn't work, but one of her children is still too young to be home alone. Day care averages about 150 a week where I live and I live in a relatively low cost area. One of her kids has a learning disability. She is going to try to home school him because he has so many problems behaving in school. ( She's an atheist by the way, religion has nothing to do with her decision. )

I see the comments in media comment sections that I visit. People don't complain about fraud. They say things like, "I work for my money and my taxes should never go to help feed people." That's how selfish and uncaring many in our society have become. Sorry, but I don't understand that attitude. We aren't a poor country. People don't always make the best decisions. Should their children be left to go hungry because their parents had them? Should those that use the system honestly be punished because a tiny number abuse it? When it comes to SNAP, I would have no problem if people could no longer use it to buy junk food like chips and candy, but I think it's fine if they use part of their benefit to treat themselves to some healthy foods that are expensive now and then.

Before i retired, one of the young women I worked with told me that she was embarrassed because she was receiving SNAP benefits. She only had one child and was single at the time. She worked hard and her pay was 8 dollars an hour. I told her not to feel that way because a lot of benefits were actually welfare for businesses that refused to pay their workers a wage that enabled them to support themselves. So, if there is fraud in the system, which isn't at all easy considering what people go through these days to receive any benefits at all from these programs, it's a tiny percentage of the total.

Sorry to go on a rant, but all of my working life, I primarily served poor people that needed help. Most of them were decent people. Most of them work or worked prior to their retirement or disability. I get a little upset when I see people making unsubstantiated judgments about them. And Loren. I think even the poorest person should be able to have a little something special at times. Oh and phones. I've offered to give my older phone to a friend that needed money, so you don't even know the details of where these people got their phones from, do you?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Climate change may be our biggest problem right now. The biggest problem for the human species. If we aren't doing anything radical about solving it, we're hosed.

I think that we're hosed. This probably deserves a separate thread. But I think that it was probably a mistake for the left to make it a political issue. Then the democratic vote split allowing two very anti-environmental presidents to be elected (Bush and Trump). I feel that there is a good chance that the dems will elect an anti-business candidate that will scare the moderates into voting Trump and we'll be in another 4 year spiral downward.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Climate change may be our biggest problem right now. The biggest problem for the human species. If we aren't doing anything radical about solving it, we're hosed.

I think that we're hosed. This probably deserves a separate thread. But I think that it was probably a mistake for the left to make it a political issue...

I think it is smart for AOC to be radical on it and try to move the center. A more mainstream Democrat in the election may be able to grab those moderates as a practical matter. BUT what I wrote is still true. We the human species are hosed if we do not do something radical about environmental policy. Republicans understand moving the center Rightward by sticking to their guns. Democrats generally don't do this and we all end up suffering as a result. So, I say don't stifle her. She's right and people need to be aware of it. The more awareness will influence moderates and again, come election time when a more mainstream candidate wins the primary, they will be more appealing.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Climate change may be our biggest problem right now. The biggest problem for the human species. If we aren't doing anything radical about solving it, we're hosed.

I think that we're hosed. This probably deserves a separate thread. But I think that it was probably a mistake for the left to make it a political issue...

I think it is smart for AOC to be radical on it and try to move the center. A more mainstream Democrat in the election may be able to grab those moderates as a practical matter. BUT what I wrote is still true. We the human species are hosed if we do not do something radical about environmental policy. Republicans understand moving the center Rightward by sticking to their guns. Democrats generally don't do this and we all end up suffering as a result. So, I say don't stifle her. She's right and people need to be aware of it. The more awareness will influence moderates and again, come election time when a more mainstream candidate wins the primary, they will be more appealing.

According to most current reports, it's already too late in the sense that we can't mitigate the worst effects of climate change at this point.

Also, Harry, do you have any evidence that it was the left that politicized being pro-environmentalism? It seems to me that it occurred the other way around. Back in the 70s, both parties were, to some extent, pro-conservation, and it was the right that drifted into a more pro-business friendly stance over the decades. I could be wrong, but that's my impression from what little I paid attention back in the day.

 

[ZiprHead]

I just saw this morning that 51% of Democrats now identify as liberal.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I just saw this morning that 51% of Democrats now identify as liberal.

I'm afraid to ask what the rest identify as...

Also, is this an increase or decrease?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I think it is smart for AOC to be radical on it and try to move the center. A more mainstream Democrat in the election may be able to grab those moderates as a practical matter. BUT what I wrote is still true. We the human species are hosed if we do not do something radical about environmental policy. Republicans understand moving the center Rightward by sticking to their guns. Democrats generally don't do this and we all end up suffering as a result. So, I say don't stifle her. She's right and people need to be aware of it. The more awareness will influence moderates and again, come election time when a more mainstream candidate wins the primary, they will be more appealing.

According to most current reports, it's already too late in the sense that we can't mitigate the worst effects of climate change at this point.

Also, Harry, do you have any evidence that it was the left that politicized being pro-environmentalism? It seems to me that it occurred the other way around. Back in the 70s, both parties were, to some extent, pro-conservation, and it was the right that drifted into a more pro-business friendly stance over the decades. I could be wrong, but that's my impression from what little I paid attention back in the day.

It was Reagan who instituted wholesale GOP anti-enviromentalism when he was elected. He appointed James Watt as his secretary of department of the interior who spearheaded roll back of decades of environmental rules. It was Reagan that informed us that trees created pollution. Over the years, the GOP has doubled down on this sort of ideology. "Drill baby drill" and "Trump digs coal".

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I think it is smart for AOC to be radical on it and try to move the center. A more mainstream Democrat in the election may be able to grab those moderates as a practical matter. BUT what I wrote is still true. We the human species are hosed if we do not do something radical about environmental policy. Republicans understand moving the center Rightward by sticking to their guns. Democrats generally don't do this and we all end up suffering as a result. So, I say don't stifle her. She's right and people need to be aware of it. The more awareness will influence moderates and again, come election time when a more mainstream candidate wins the primary, they will be more appealing.

According to most current reports, it's already too late in the sense that we can't mitigate the worst effects of climate change at this point.

Also, Harry, do you have any evidence that it was the left that politicized being pro-environmentalism? It seems to me that it occurred the other way around. Back in the 70s, both parties were, to some extent, pro-conservation, and it was the right that drifted into a more pro-business friendly stance over the decades. I could be wrong, but that's my impression from what little I paid attention back in the day.

The ESA, probably the most comprehensive environmental law we have, passed in 1973. Do the math. Clean air act was a year or so before that. Clean air act was a decade earlier.

 

[Derec]

This thread is going in all different directions but let me at least respond to this. No. I don't think fraud has much if anything to do with it. And, I'm skeptical of your remark that you often see people buying expensive things with EBT. Did you mean SNAP, the benefit that provides help with food? EBT payments average 125 per month. I think that refers to cash payments. They are hard to get, limited to a five years and aren't the same as SNAP, so I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

Both cash payments and SNAP/food stamps (no longer actual stamps) are accessed through EBT (electronic benefit transfer).

Some would say that my friend should never have had so many children. Well, she actually had six, but two are grown and she was 15 when she had the first one.

Yes, she should not have had six children and ended up on food stamps.

Maybe if funds for public health programs had not been cut so much, and if she had received more support and a better education, she would have started using birth control at an earlier age.

True. That's where I part ways with conservatives on this. I am a big believer in real sex education as well as giving people access to birth control options.

Maybe she would have gone on to further her education. Her husband is a very nice man, who isn't educated and probably doesn't have the intelligence to further his education.

I wonder if her husband is the father of all her kids, including the one she had at 15. Was it a shotgun wedding?

He works as a fork life operator. He takes any over time that is offered to him. He's a good father and husband. I've never asked my friend why she doesn't work, but one of her children is still too young to be home alone. Day care averages about 150 a week where I live and I live in a relatively low cost area. One of her kids has a learning disability. She is going to try to home school him because he has so many problems behaving in school. ( She's an atheist by the way, religion has nothing to do with her decision. )

They knew they did not make much. So why not get fixed after say two of them? Why make six?

I see the comments in media comment sections that I visit. People don't complain about fraud. They say things like, "I work for my money and my taxes should never go to help feed people." That's how selfish and uncaring many in our society have become.

That would indeed be selfish and uncaring. I am fine with my tax moneys going to help people. However, if I see people paying with EBT that have more luxuries (at least overt ones) than I do - more expensive clothes (like baller sneakers on kids or LV purses), fancy phones or a nice, big SUV (most likely leased), then I do not have much sympathy. That is not most SNAP recipients, but people tend to notice people like that.

When it comes to SNAP, I would have no problem if people could no longer use it to buy junk food like chips and candy, but I think it's fine if they use part of their benefit to treat themselves to some healthy foods that are expensive now and then.

I agree. It's important to have treat yourself sometimes, as long as it is reasonable.

Sorry to go on a rant, but all of my working life, I primarily served poor people that needed help. Most of them were decent people. Most of them work or worked prior to their retirement or disability. I get a little upset when I see people making unsubstantiated judgments about them. And Loren. I think even the poorest person should be able to have a little something special at times. Oh and phones. I've offered to give my older phone to a friend that needed money, so you don't even know the details of where these people got their phones from, do you?

Smart phones are no longer a luxury. Even without service, they can be useful as internet devices on wifi. And there are really affordable ones. So I do not begrudge anybody a smart phone. It is not 2007 any longer. But if you have the latest iPhone or Samsung Galaxy, then there is something wrong with your priorities. Same with cars. Not a luxury most places, but some cars definitely are.
If you see people like that, you can tell they are in that situation because of priorities. And they will never improve their situation while having to get the newest shiny thing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am fine with my tax moneys going to help people. However, if I see people paying with EBT that have more luxuries (at least overt ones) than I do - more expensive clothes (like baller sneakers on kids or LV purses), fancy phones or a nice, big SUV (most likely leased), then I do not have much sympathy. That is not most SNAP recipients, but people tend to notice people like that.

My mother worked in her youth. Her mother worked hard her whole life. I work hard. My sister works hard. My brother works hard. Now, given all that, when I was a kid I was poor--to include my mother being on food stamps, AFDC, WIC, etc. First, I have to ask why assume our money came from people like you instead of from ourselves. We all worked and contributed tax to the govt which is somewhat like insurance. Since you don't know the particular people in question personally, maybe they've paid for themselves, so to speak. Second, why assume their fancy sneakers or whatever were paid with these govt programs as opposed to gifted to them from wealthier relatives/friends or from some other source. I mean, when I was a kid and dirt poor, hardly food in the fridge quite often, I had a couple of well-to-do aunts who on occasion may have given me Christmas gifts of nice clothes. So, if you saw me, you'd assume I bought nice clothes with welfare checks or whatever. Third, the whole thing about luxury item restrictions for poor people is a bit of an arbitrary and unfair requirement from nowhere. Why can't poor people have several nice things, even if paid for with govt checks. Why can't they treat themselves to a nice meal a couple of times a month. I really have to recommend some empathy here--not sympathy, but try to treat others like people.