The US has previously had top marginal income tax rates even higher than 70%. As far as I can tell, currently the highest tax bracket is 37% at income over $600,000. Why not add more brackets with progressively higher rates? The largest barrier is that usually to get elected to to the federal positions that are required to pass this policy you need the support of the donor class, exactly the constituency that would be opposed to the policy.
Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan
31–40 of 113 posts
Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan
#32To put this in context, a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax bracket is not unprecedented, or even high by historical standards [1]: > Sanders said income tax rates under Eisenhower were as high as 90 percent. > A look through the records shows that top earners in the eight years of Eisenhower’s presidency paid a top income tax rate of 91 percent. It was even a bit higher before he took office. > We rate Sanders…
> income tax rates under Eisenhower were as high as 90 percent.
Climate change is not WWII.
Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan
#33I 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 perso…
I agree with raising taxes, maybe not through income tax as it’s shown it often can decreases revenue and capital flight etc. and I support high brackets in the $10M range and up. Many people think 100k is rich and 400k is extremely rich but taxing that further I’m sure will decrease revenue.
I support things like a tax on digital advertising. This is a tax that wouldn’t slow growth or harm the econo,y really and impacts mostly those with extremely high capital investments. Facebook, Google help our economy a lot but they don’t have that many jobs in relation to profits. A 10% tax on digital advertising would eat marginally into their profits but their profits rise 25% a year so not too bad. That would raise around $15-$20B a year by 2020. Imagine how doubling the subsidies for solar and EVs would do for renewables and EVs.
Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan
#34To put this in context, a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax bracket is not unprecedented, or even high by historical standards [1]: > Sanders said income tax rates under Eisenhower were as high as 90 percent. > A look through the records shows that top earners in the eight years of Eisenhower’s presidency paid a top income tax rate of 91 percent. It was even a bit higher before he took office. > We rate Sanders…
> income tax rates under Eisenhower were as high as 90 percent. Climate change is not WWII.
No, it is actually much, much worse.
Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan
#35I look at these "tax the super-rich" ideas like this:
>"Added together, the total net worth for 2018's billionaires was US$9.1 trillion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires
Meanwhile, the US federal government spends ~$4 trillion per year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/...
So even confiscating all the wealth of the top couple thousand richest people in the world (not just US) would only fund the US government for 2-3 years. And that would be a one-time event.
Basically, the amount of money spent by the US government is already so massive that I don't see how giving it more can possibly help with anything. It would be much more realistic to attempt making the government slightly more efficient and then reallocating the money saved.
And that ignores that barely anyone will end up paying these 90% taxes, just like almost no revenue was collected from the 90% bracket in the 1950s since various accounting methods/etc were be used to avoid it.
Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan
#36To put this in context, a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax bracket is not unprecedented, or even high by historical standards [1]: > Sanders said income tax rates under Eisenhower were as high as 90 percent. > A look through the records shows that top earners in the eight years of Eisenhower’s presidency paid a top income tax rate of 91 percent. It was even a bit higher before he took office. > We rate Sanders…
> income tax rates under Eisenhower were as high as 90 percent. Climate change is not WWII.
You're right - the stakes are much higher with climate change.
Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
So she's just not supposed to start talking about ideas?
Maybe it would be more useful to talk about ideas that have an actual chance of being enacted.
She's just reframing the debate. Once people realize how much support there is for a 70% tax bracket at the top, they'll be happy if it's "only" 50%.
Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan
#38I openly admit I am a republican but I have never understood why there are not more tax brackets. A person making 100k per year is not even close to the same as a person making 100m per year but are taxed at the same rate.
I've never really understood why there are brackets in the first place, can't we just write a function to calculate your taxes based off your total income?
Because income tax in the first place is a compromise with people who don't want that system at all. So you get a solution that isn't what anyone wants.
Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan
#39Although Ocasio-Cortez minored in economics, she doesn't seem to understand simple concepts such as unemployment rates. In a recent interview[1], in response to a question about how low unemployment rates undermine her message of the working class falling behind, she said the following:
> I think the numbers you just talked about is part of the problem. Because we look at these figures and say, "Unemployment is low. Everything is fine." Well unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.
This was so incorrect that Politifact rated it "pants on fire".[2]
AOC also doesn't seem to have an understanding of basic historical facts. Immediately after she put her foot in her mouth on labor stats, she said:
> Right now we have this no-holds-barred wild west hypercapitalism. What that means is profit at any cost. Capitalism has not always existed in the world and it will not always exist in the world. When this country started, we were not capitalist. We did not operate on a capitalist economy.
That is not the sort of mind that I want tinkering with the economy I am part of.
1. Starting around 5:45 in this video: https://www.pbs.org/video/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-barhhq/
2. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul...
Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan
#40I 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 perso…
How relevant is this actually? Legislators make the law but it's the bureaucrats, who are the real specialists in crafting the details of legislation that are actually relevant.
Competent politicians aren't competent because they're knowledgeable in every possible topic, but because they surround themselves with subject matter experts.