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

51–60 of 113 posts

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

#51

Post by rhegart »

gkoberger wrote: post #41
weberc2 wrote: post #15

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 perso…

Why do you believe she's not competent? She seems to be competent. Secondly, isn't empathy, vision, ambition and an ability to rally people incredibly important for a politician? Politicians aren't supposed to know everything, but rather work with appropriate experts and aides.

She really isn’t competent. Watch any interview she gives or her discussing anything really. But that doesn’t matter. We don’t need everyone to be competent, if she can get a message out to young people and her following she can raise awareness and tilt voters to policies further to what she wants. She is extremely charismatic and that’s an important skill in itself. It’s like playing with fire because she would make a terrible lead lawmaker on everything, but she absolutely is doing a fantastic job raising awareness

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

#52

Post by loeg »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #8

To 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…

Technically correct, although dividends were excluded from the high income rate, so most ultra-wealthy just took much of their income in dividends instead. (Or pursued other means of tax avoidance[0], or tax evasion[1].)

[0]: i.e., legal

[1]: i.e., illegal

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

#53

Post by L_Rahman »

nonbel wrote: post #35

I 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…

Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people.

If this seems radical, notice that this is already part of the American social contract. We already tax people to provide services and invest in long term projects. All this does is change the rates and the allocation direction.

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

#54

Post by loeg »

pmdulaney wrote: post #44

What if we were to have an amendment to the Constitution such that income taxes for each income group would have to be approved by a plebiscite of those actually IN that income group? I wouldn't feel nearly so uneasy about taxing the ultra-rich at 70% if the majority of them were in favor of it.

Might as well just amend the Constitution to forbid raising income taxes.

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

#55

Post by dragonwriter »

pmdulaney wrote: post #44

What if we were to have an amendment to the Constitution such that income taxes for each income group would have to be approved by a plebiscite of those actually IN that income group? I wouldn't feel nearly so uneasy about taxing the ultra-rich at 70% if the majority of them were in favor of it.

> What if we were to have an amendment to the Constitution such that income taxes for each income group would have to be approved by a plebiscite of those actually IN that income group?

Similarly, we should also require that regulations on industry be approved by the regulated industry, and that criminal punishments be ratified by those who are guilty of the specific crime.

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

#56

Post by lghh »

zozbot123 wrote: post #48
Daishiman wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Competent politicians aren't ... they surround themselves with subject matter experts. ¿Por qué no los dos? Is Ocasio-Cortez surrounding herself with subject-matter experts?

She's been in Congress for a whole 4 days. I'm sure by the time any legislation was starting to be written there will be subject matter experts in the room.

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

#57

Post by LyndsySimon »

Daishiman wrote: post #40
weberc2 wrote: post #15

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 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.

> It's the bureaucrats, who are the real specialists in crafting the details of legislation that are actually relevant.

In my experience, it's often just "interested parties". I'm thinking of multiple cases where political advocacy groups I've worked with have drafted a bill proposal and taken it directly to state-level legislators seeking to have them sponsor it. In every case, they either refused or submitted the bill as-is without modification.

In one case, that means that an Arkansas law was actually drafted by a 16-year-old (me). That one was relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, but still :)

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

#58

Post by pmdulaney »

dragonwriter wrote: post #55
pmdulaney wrote: post #44

What if we were to have an amendment to the Constitution such that income taxes for each income group would have to be approved by a plebiscite of those actually IN that income group? I wouldn't feel nearly so uneasy about taxing the ultra-rich at 70% if the majority of them were in favor of it.

> What if we were to have an amendment to the Constitution such that income taxes for each income group would have to be approved by a plebiscite of those actually IN that income group? Similarly, we should also require that regulations on industry be approved by the regulated industry, and that criminal punishments be ratified by those who are guilty of the specific crime.

Well, I think if we can impose 70% taxes on the ultra-rich, perhaps we should pass a law that Asians have to pay 50% more than other groups; I believe we still can outvote them.

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

#59

Post by nonbel »

L_Rahman wrote: post #53
nonbel wrote: post #35

I 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…

Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people. If this seems radical, notice that this is already part of the American social contract. We already tax people to provide services and invest in long term projects. All this does is change the rates and the allocation direction.

>"Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people."

Ok, well here is a department of the government I am familiar with admitting they waste $25-30 billion every year (imo that is an underestimate, but they definitely waste over 50% of their funding on worthless stuff): https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3...

So why not reallocate that to whatever this climate project is? And I'm sure there is similar massive waste in other departments too. If 87.5% is representative that is $3.5 trillion per year to be used.

I mean no one actually wants to waste ~$30 billion a year on worthless medical research, right?

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

#60

Post by thatswrong0 »

e40 wrote: post #10

70% was the highest tax rate in 1980, so this is not as insane as it might seem on the surface. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Historic...

IIRC the _effective_ tax rates that the top 1% pay haven’t really varied much over the past half a century.. it’s always hovered around 30-40%: https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170804133536/Average-Effec...

Note I just grabbed the first google result, may be inaccurate / biased

Post reply on HN