Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 113 posts

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#11

Post by umvi »

Diminishing returns sounds like a good idea on paper, because then the richer you get, the more you contribute. But remember that the people who are experiencing the diminishing returns aren't going to like it (besides Warren Buffett) and will probably fight against it.

It's a bit of a conundrum. The richer you get, the more power you have (via money). We want to tap into that wealth/power for the greater good. Those affected might disagree and can wield said power to prevent you from doing so. You might be able to legally force them to using the power of democracy, but this could cause all sorts of other problems (the rich fleeing to other countries, etc.)

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#12

Post by lghh »

gkoberger wrote: post #6

Agree or disagree, there's a few things this article left unclear. First, the US has a progressive tax code. So, you wouldn't be taxed 70% on your entire income, only the money over a certain amount. Plus, due to deductions and other loopholes, nobody will actually pay this full amount. Secondly, this rate isn't a new idea. It was 94% under FDR (democrat) and 91% during the Eisenhower (republican) administration, and…

The first point was mentioned in the article.

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#13

Post by robotrout »

beepboopbeep wrote: post #2

I would not shed a tear over this.

The original income tax was also promised to be only a tax on the rich. These things have a way of finding the non-rich eventually.

Also, remember in 1970, the bank secrecy act put in place a $10,000 threshold for deposits or withdrawals, that were not reported on a "suspicious activities" list. This is also where we got the $10,000 travel disclosure rule. You will note that in 50 years, that threshold has not budged, putting non-wealthy people and transactions under the microscope. These laws are not adjusted for inflation, and we all expect there to continue to be inflation at the current or even an accelerated rate.

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#15

Post by weberc2 »

I applaud ambitious efforts and I'm open to raising taxes for the very rich (albeit easy for me to say down here in the middle class), but AOC doesn't strike be as competent in the slightest (although as her supporters are so fond of rationalizing, she's not the least competent public official). She has charisma, which is an important leadership quality, but not much else as far as I can tell. Certainly not the person I want leading the charge on climate change.

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#16

Post by gkoberger »

lghh wrote: post #12
gkoberger wrote: post #6

Agree or disagree, there's a few things this article left unclear. First, the US has a progressive tax code. So, you wouldn't be taxed 70% on your entire income, only the money over a certain amount. Plus, due to deductions and other loopholes, nobody will actually pay this full amount. Secondly, this rate isn't a new idea. It was 94% under FDR (democrat) and 91% during the Eisenhower (republican) administration, and…

The first point was mentioned in the article.

It does include the quote "That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate", however it wasn't explained for anyone who's unfamiliar with our system.

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#17

Post by cleansy »

> Income tax hikes are dead on arrival while Republicans control the Senate and White House. Such a steep increase also isn’t likely to find much support among many congressional Democrats.

And rightfully so. When pretty much everyone benefited from lax climate controls and externalities that are not directly included in the price of a product or service, why should only on special group pay for it? If there were a global move towards pricing in climate change into the end price, however that may work, I would strongly suggest that everyone has to pay their share. Or am I missing something here?

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#18

Post by maccio92 »

umvi wrote: post #11

Diminishing returns sounds like a good idea on paper, because then the richer you get, the more you contribute. But remember that the people who are experiencing the diminishing returns aren't going to like it (besides Warren Buffett) and will probably fight against it. It's a bit of a conundrum. The richer you get, the more power you have (via money). We want to tap into that wealth/power for the greater good. Those…

Because if I'm able to make myself sufficiently wealthy, I should be trusted to handle my money myself, not have it redistributed by some third party that doesn't always operate very efficiently.

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#19

Post by adventured »

gkoberger wrote: post #6

Agree or disagree, there's a few things this article left unclear. First, the US has a progressive tax code. So, you wouldn't be taxed 70% on your entire income, only the money over a certain amount. Plus, due to deductions and other loopholes, nobody will actually pay this full amount. Secondly, this rate isn't a new idea. It was 94% under FDR (democrat) and 91% during the Eisenhower (republican) administration, and…

> and both resulted in times of prosperity

Both occurred during (some) times of prosperity. That's an entirely different premise than giving the tax rate credit for the prosperity. FDR never once saw sustained economic prosperity during his tenure in office. That isn't a statement on his policies, rather, his time in office coincided with the great depression and WW2. He died before the post war boom took hold.

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#20

Post by AnimalMuppet »

She cites Lincoln and FDR as evidence that radical ideas can be good ones. But "there have been radical ideas that have been good" does not imply "this radical idea is a good one".

Her idea may in fact be good, but on this point, her logic does not work.

As for the idea itself: IIRC, there seem to be significant second-order effects that keep the federal government's income at 18-22% of GDP, no matter what the tax rates are. So raising the rates like this may provide significantly less new income than she expects.

What's more, if you have a pot of new money, there will be competing ideas for how to spend it. This green initiative may be a good idea. Somebody else may have a good idea - say, Medicare for all. And a different somebody may have another good idea - say, guaranteed basic income. The problem is, even if raising the taxes provides the expected money, the money is only enough for one of these ideas. You can only spend that pot once. But Congress being Congress, they're going to want to spend it three times. (Note well: This specific paragraph is not a criticism of Ocasio-Cortez's idea; it's a criticism of Congress in general.)

Post reply on HN