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

81–90 of 113 posts

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

#81

Post by dragonwriter »

geezerjay wrote: post #70
L_Rahman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. That simplistic logic fails to account for the fact that pursuing income is an incentive to allocate resources to productive investments that are self-sufficient and pay off tons of taxes directly and indirextly, such as by paying s…

> Once you start to impose communist "reallocation mechanisms"

You mean, like a heirarchy of preferential tax rates for different income sources where capital income is favored over general income which in turn is favored over labor income?

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

#82

Post by tracker1 »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #24

Not a word about the logistics of making such a huge change in such a short amount of time? Surely AOC realizes that money isn't the only obstacle, but also replacing an enormous amount of infrastructure. When you think about how ubiquitous our usage of gasoline, home heating oil, CNG for heating and cooking, and on and on, it quickly becomes clear that while finances would be very difficult, that's dwarfed by the am…

That doesn't even account for locations where most electricity comes from coal, or fossil generation. I think nuclear gets a bad rep for the most part, and don't mind it... that said some hate it.

Beyond this, is expanding the power needs for areas that may not have capacity meaning more infrastructure. Replacing main breakers and panels...

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

#83

Post by nonbel »

InitialLastName wrote: post #72
nonbel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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://nihr…

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. The problem with saying "Half of this research is worthless" is that it's impossible to know which of the research will be worthless before you do the research . As long as the research that was useful produced enough value to justify the system (which, in the case of the NIH I'd venture it does), it's worth doing overall. This reminds me of the Wanamaker quote: “Half the money…

>"The problem with saying "Half of this research is worthless" is that it's impossible to know which of the research will be worthless before you do the research."

Once you know the common problems, it is actually quite easy to spot design flaws or a history of hiding unwanted results. When you know what to look for you can filter out crappy research in a few seconds. It could probably be automated to a large extent.

For example, a common thing in biomed is to have a "headline claim" that x protein/drug/etc influences y behavior/health outcome/etc. But then there is never a scatterplot of x vs y.

Another is lack of "blinding" (hiding the experimental conditions from the researcher/subjects). There are more, but you get the picture. The presence of these baffling practices quickly demonstrates they don't know what they are doing, and the research should not be funded.

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

#84

Post by tracker1 »

tashoecraft wrote: post #30
maccio92 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't about trust, no one cares whether a rich person can handle their money. That's not why they pay taxes or that those who aren't super rich pay taxes because they can't be trusted. It's about funding the society that helped enable you to become wealthy. That instead of relying on the christian idea of charity that we instead fund a society that can create a more stable environment.

And what's so wrong from wanting to support charities that pay for the things you want and care about vs. more money to the militarization of police, or the military industrial complex in general?

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

#85

Post by tracker1 »

pmdulaney wrote: post #58
dragonwriter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I know you're probably trolling/joking, but I've thought that we should have something like this for non-citizen workers combined with more open borders for migrant workers and H1B floors for pay.

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

#86

Post by happytoexplain »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #73
dragonwriter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are you really comparing "earning over $x in a year" with "guilty of a specific crime"?

In the sense that, given the power to define how the law treats them in each of their relevant contexts (taxation and legal punishment), they would both have extremely strong motivations to favor their own wellbeing to the exclusion of society as a whole. But isn't that obviously the analogy being drawn? Your phrasing makes it sound like the parent comment was saying rich people should generally be treated like criminals, which just sounds like a purposeful misinterpretation (no offense if you were genuinely unsure what the parent comment was saying).

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

#87

Post by InitialLastName »

kansface wrote: post #46
kenforthewin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - the stakes are much higher with climate change.

Sure, but they are not imminent (what is the pearl harbor of climate change?). Further, climate change is highly politicized whereas WWII mobilized the entire country in purpose.

> what is the pearl harbor of climate change?

I'd say Katrina, Sandy, Irene, Maria, Camp, Woolsey, and Mendocino, but if you're not convinced already you'll never be.

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

#88

Post by sierdolij »

kansface wrote: post #46
kenforthewin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - the stakes are much higher with climate change.

Sure, but they are not imminent (what is the pearl harbor of climate change?). Further, climate change is highly politicized whereas WWII mobilized the entire country in purpose.

Disclaimer: I'm apolitical because right/left is divide-and-conquer, divided-we-fall noise.

Climate change shouldn't be political or some far-off hypothetical.. no propaganda, rationalization or BS can deny the mountain of evidence that it's an immediate, existential threat that demands immediate, decisive action on the decatrillion-dollar moonshot scale (roughly the total, multi-decade cost of Iraq & Afghanistan).

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

#89

Post by weberc2 »

tracker1 wrote: post #77
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…

I'm not... I've seen enough government operations that you cannot convince me that additional taxation is necessary vs. reducing excess spending and bureaucracy.

That’s fine. I sympathize with that position too.

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

#90

Post by microcolonel »

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…

> besides Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett doesn't actually like it, otherwise he'd be writing checks to the treasury.

Post reply on HN