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

101–110 of 113 posts

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

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

wafflesraccoon wrote: post #27
bigfartchili wrote: post #14

I 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?

> 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?

You could use a function with a smooth derivative, and since a table is used in application it would have no effect on practical complexity of tax prep, though it would make intuitive grasp even harder (and it's already bad.)

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

#102

Post by dragonwriter »

berbec wrote: post #62
loeg wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Didn't work so well for California.

As much as I dislike the supermajority tax rule in CA, it actually hasn't been that much of a practical problem (the supermajority budget rule was, but that was dumped.)

Of course, it's not an actual block on tax increases, and there's a straight-to-the-ballot bypass available.

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

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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.

Why? What do you think happens to money after the government spends it? It vanishes?

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

#104

Post by berbec »

dragonwriter wrote: post #102
berbec wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't work so well for California.

As much as I dislike the supermajority tax rule in CA, it actually hasn't been that much of a practical problem (the supermajority budget rule was, but that was dumped.) Of course, it's not an actual block on tax increases, and there's a straight-to-the-ballot bypass available.

I was referencing the property tax freeze, but I take your point as well.

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

#105

Post by goalieca »

tracker1 wrote: post #84
tashoecraft wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Charities are only needed because the government doesn’t provide the necessary services in those areas. The unfortunate thing with charities is that it’s a whim of the donors what gets covered (1 dollar = 1 vote) and sometimes they are religious (not all inclusive)

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

#106

Post by goalieca »

cleansy wrote: post #50
johnny313 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When pretty much everyone benefited from lax climate controls and externalities that are not directly included in the price of a product or service I think the argument would be that the ultra-wealthy benefited more from a carbon-based economy than the average worker, in the form of their accumulated fortune.

I think that argument is not valid. The "ultra rich" would benefit from any kind of capitalistic economy, they are "ultra rich" because they have more capital than 99.9% ( or whatever) of the population. And most of this fortune stems from having shares in businesses. However, IF we would have taxed the greenhouse gas emissions into every product, maybe not even the middle class would have been able to afford it. But…

Consumption is one way to see it. But if, as you were saying, society benefited a lot from greenhouse gases then perhaps tax those that benefited most from our society :)

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

#107

Post by nonbel »

dragonwriter wrote: post #103
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…

> 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. Why? What do you think happens to money after the government spends it? It vanishes?

See my other posts in this thread. I'd guess the money is largely wasted on stuff like incorrect medical "discoveries" that slow down progress. Ie, the money is being used to create problems that require more future money to fix.

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

#108

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dragonwriter wrote: post #100
rhegart wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> She really isn’t competent. Watch any interview she gives or her discussing anything really. Not seeing it. I've spent some time working in a (state, not federal) legislative office and have a political science degree (specialized in pragmatics of US politics.) I've seen some of her interviews. I don't see anything that indicates that she would be incompetent as a legislator. Could you explain the basis for your as…

Well, a number of her interviews seem to show her not having a very good grasp on basic facts. The branches of the US government. How much the military spends. Fairly basic stuff.

Now, this could be that she's not good at interviews, and feels the need to keep talking to appear competent. She could know far more, and just be unable (yet) to bring it out in front of the cameras. But to me, she comes off as talking without knowing. That scares me in someone who can write legislation.

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

#109

Post by hello_newman »

dragonwriter wrote: post #100
rhegart wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> She really isn’t competent. Watch any interview she gives or her discussing anything really. Not seeing it. I've spent some time working in a (state, not federal) legislative office and have a political science degree (specialized in pragmatics of US politics.) I've seen some of her interviews. I don't see anything that indicates that she would be incompetent as a legislator. Could you explain the basis for your as…

Regardless of your political views, there’s no way anyone could watch this interview of her and think she’s a competent government official.

https://www.pbs.org/video/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-barhhq/

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

#110

Post by tracker1 »

pmdulaney wrote: post #98
tracker1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I would say it is neither trolling nor joking, but rather a kind of thought experiment. Isn't soaking the rich (if I'm not rich) very similar to placing exorbitant taxes on the Asians (if I'm not Asian)? It's really just a matter of how far you think we can take the notion of the tyranny of the majority until it becomes morally repugnant.

I, honestly think that taxes are all around too high, and spending more so. I'm in favor of flat taxes. I would suggest that higher non-citizen taxes as well as a pay floor (must be at least X) for h1b visa workers. Those would be mainly to offset immigration. I'm not against immigration, however drawing too many people will create resource constraints on one side, and depression of income and lifestyle on the other.
Post reply on HN