I hear you...but Venezuela. I mean let socialists into power and the US is only 99 steps away from becoming Venezuela.
I hear you...but Venezuela. I mean let socialists into power and the US is only 99 steps away from becoming Venezuela.At the same time embrace Communism by lauding Putin and Xi.
The majority on the left are not opposed to people being wealthy. They are opposed to American citizens living in poverty. They are opposed to extreme disparities between the wealthy and the poor and middle class such as we are seeing now. They are opposed to the wealthy wielding such power that the top 0.01% controls that vast majority of the political power in the country. They are opposed to the wealthy abusing their power to pass legislation designed to further increase their wealth at the expense of the poor and middle class. They are opposed to billionaires paying a lower tax rate than the average American.
Let's take these one by one:
Yes let’s
The majority on the left are not opposed to people being wealthy. If you say so, but complaints about things like "Reagan's tax cuts" undercut this. If you really didn't care if they were rich you wouldn't be upset the tax code wasn't being used to punitively cut down their wealth via taxation.
The left was upset about tax cuts because it’s horrible policy. What exactly have we gained from tax cuts? Our debts certainly haven’t gone down, GDP hasn’t shown any noticeable change, wealth inequality hasn’t improved. Your straw man noted.
They are opposed to American citizens living in poverty. Poverty isn't a career choice or major in college. People are typically poor because either they make bad life choices (e.g. having a child in their teens), make bad economic choices (e.g buying a 6000sq ft foot for 2 people or too much consumer goods on credit and having the debt service hold them down like an anchor), or because they've had some bad luck befall them and they're either in transition/recovery or refuse to make steps to make their lives better (e.g. move out of their 20 person town when they lose their job). There is no "the man" holding you down and forcing you into slavery.
That’s not only false but it’s extremely ignorant as this country has has many policies that indeed hold people down. Things like redlining, compounding fines, and a justice system that isn’t applied equally, are just several things that contradict your claims.
They are opposed to extreme disparities between the wealthy and the poor and middle class such as we are seeing now. Ok, everyone has their opinions.
They are opposed to the wealthy wielding such power that the top 0.01% controls that vast majority of the political power in the country. Perhaps you should consider why we provided that much power to politicians to begin with and take some of it back? Are poors that much better in 2019 when federal government spends 21% of GDP or so versus when they spent about 5% or less a century ago? Do you think they'd be better off if we spent 42% instead somehow?
Straw man number 2. What he’s saying is that the rich control politics, as in those with the money to lobby and to give large campaign contributions control policy. I hope I don’t have to give examples of this because it would not reflect well on you.
They are opposed to the wealthy abusing their power to pass legislation designed to further increase their wealth at the expense of the poor and middle class. So basically sit back and passively accept the 90% taxation that progressives would impose if they had the chance? That's basically what you mean when you say "they abuse their power" when it gets down to it. I guess only progressives making $250k a year get to have their preferences accounted for in public policy, if you're rich and make $250mm a year then FOAD.
Thats straw man number 3. See my pervious response to better understand his point.
They are opposed to billionaires paying a lower tax rate than the average American. Already addressed this in another thread. The "average American" has basically no federal income tax liability and their taxes consist almost completely of payroll taxes (which they get back in transfer payments) or local sales/local taxes. The rest is due to capital gains being lower than income taxes because they aren't indexed to inflation and the lower rate accounts for that. Fix your own regressive state taxation and stop charging your urban residents double digit sales taxes and this "problem" would disappear as it's of your own making.
Just because the rich makes their money via other means that allows them to take advantage of a lower tax rate doesn’t negate the
Usual right wing distortions, you still waiting for the trickle down, or still believe that supply side tax cuts pay for themselves?Let's take these one by one:
The majority on the left are not opposed to people being wealthy. If you say so, but complaints about things like "Reagan's tax cuts" undercut this. If you really didn't care if they were rich you wouldn't be upset the tax code wasn't being used to punitively cut down their wealth via taxation.
They are opposed to American citizens living in poverty. Poverty isn't a career choice or major in college. People are typically poor because either they make bad life choices (e.g. having a child in their teens), make bad economic choices (e.g buying a 6000sq ft foot for 2 people or too much consumer goods on credit and having the debt service hold them down like an anchor), or because they've had some bad luck befall them and they're either in transition/recovery or refuse to make steps to make their lives better (e.g. move out of their 20 person town when they lose their job). There is no "the man" holding you down and forcing you into slavery.
They are opposed to extreme disparities between the wealthy and the poor and middle class such as we are seeing now. Ok, everyone has their opinions.
They are opposed to the wealthy wielding such power that the top 0.01% controls that vast majority of the political power in the country. Perhaps you should consider why we provided that much power to politicians to begin with and take some of it back? Are poors that much better in 2019 when federal government spends 21% of GDP or so versus when they spent about 5% or less a century ago? Do you think they'd be better off if we spent 42% instead somehow?
They are opposed to the wealthy abusing their power to pass legislation designed to further increase their wealth at the expense of the poor and middle class. So basically sit back and passively accept the 90% taxation that progressives would impose if they had the chance? That's basically what you mean when you say "they abuse their power" when it gets down to it. I guess only progressives making $250k a year get to have their preferences accounted for in public policy, if you're rich and make $250mm a year then FOAD.
They are opposed to billionaires paying a lower tax rate than the average American. Already addressed this in another thread. The "average American" has basically no federal income tax liability and their taxes consist almost completely of payroll taxes (which they get back in transfer payments) or local sales/local taxes. The rest is due to capital gains being lower than income taxes because they aren't indexed to inflation and the lower rate accounts for that. Fix your own regressive state taxation and stop charging your urban residents double digit sales taxes and this "problem" would disappear as it's of your own making.
While I know a lot of people perceive this as a frivolous issue, but it represents a very important one. There are constant attempts by those on the right to portray the left as socialists, in their minds meaning people want complete redistribution of wealth so there are no longer any wealthy individuals. While there may be a few fringe individuals that desire this, in general this is not the case.
The majority on the left are not opposed to people being wealthy. They are opposed to American citizens living in poverty. They are opposed to extreme disparities between the wealthy and the poor and middle class such as we are seeing now. They are opposed to the wealthy wielding such power that the top 0.01% controls that vast majority of the political power in the country. They are opposed to the wealthy abusing their power to pass legislation designed to further increase their wealth at the expense of the poor and middle class. They are opposed to billionaires paying a lower tax rate than the average American.
I wonder how much she pays for a mani/pedi?
She's better looking than the Fox bimbos.Republicans are sure afraid of her. She is just one member of congress. Amazing, if you watch Fox, the amount of time they spend talking about her. What are they afraid of?
Responses in bold.
Promoting better living conditions for the lower class does not mean a person has to live like the lower class.
Citation? Most hard-progressives are calling for the top 5% to get gutted to pay for most programs.All us middle incomers whom she expects to tax to pay for her initiatives
State/Region? $75k should be reasonable even in relatively expensive rural areas if you aren't silly with your money. That's coming from someone that lives in an expensive rural area, in an expensive state.Let her come to my rural area and try to live off $75k
Again, citation?When you force the commoners to live $1 above poverty to bring someone else out of poverty
Who wants to increase taxes on the middle class? Hint: Its not democrats or people like AOC. It is republicans. Democrats want to increase taxes on the wealthy. No one wants to force people to live $1 above the poverty line. We want people to live on $2 million per year instead of $4 million per year. We want billionaires to pay a tax rate at least comparable to everyday Americans. If you are concerned about the living conditions of the middle class, you're attacking the wrong people.Well why shouldn't it? All us middle incomers whom she expects to tax to pay for her initiatives are going to have to. Let her come to my rural area and try to live off $75k instead of her city life $300k salary and then she wants to raise my taxes?
To blazes with her and her haircut.
When you force the commoners to live $1 above poverty to bring someone else out of poverty, you're damn right she should have to live the same.
Well why shouldn't it? All us middle incomers whom she expects to tax to pay for her initiatives are going to have to. Let her come to my rural area and try to live off $75k instead of her city life $300k salary and then she wants to raise my taxes?
To blazes with her and her haircut.
When you force the commoners to live $1 above poverty to bring someone else out of poverty, you're damn right she should have to live the same.
We want billionaires to pay a tax rate at least comparable to everyday Americans.
If you repeal taxes without increasing them somewhere else, you lose money. Gotta tax someone, and taxes have to increase somewhere if they decrease somewhere else.Repeal your regressive state local and sales taxes and you'll have your wish. That's the cause of the problem you're complaining about.
Let's take these one by one:
The majority on the left are not opposed to people being wealthy. If you say so, but complaints about things like "Reagan's tax cuts" undercut this. If you really didn't care if they were rich you wouldn't be upset the tax code wasn't being used to punitively cut down their wealth via taxation.
Wrong. Here's a great TED talk about this topic. Poverty is not a result of bad choices. Bad choices are a result of poverty.They are opposed to American citizens living in poverty. Poverty isn't a career choice or major in college. People are typically poor because either they make bad life choices (e.g. having a child in their teens), make bad economic choices (e.g buying a 6000sq ft foot for 2 people or too much consumer goods on credit and having the debt service hold them down like an anchor), or because they've had some bad luck befall them and they're either in transition/recovery or refuse to make steps to make their lives better (e.g. move out of their 20 person town when they lose their job). There is no "the man" holding you down and forcing you into slavery.
They are opposed to the wealthy wielding such power that the top 0.01% controls that vast majority of the political power in the country. Perhaps you should consider why we provided that much power to politicians to begin with and take some of it back? Are poors that much better in 2019 when federal government spends 21% of GDP or so versus when they spent about 5% or less a century ago? Do you think they'd be better off if we spent 42% instead somehow?
They are opposed to the wealthy abusing their power to pass legislation designed to further increase their wealth at the expense of the poor and middle class. So basically sit back and passively accept the 90% taxation that progressives would impose if they had the chance? That's basically what you mean when you say "they abuse their power" when it gets down to it. I guess only progressives making $250k a year get to have their preferences accounted for in public policy, if you're rich and make $250mm a year then FOAD.
Who the fuck cares if the tax is due to federal income tax. The fact of the matter is that the only way this happens is if taxes on billionaires are ridiculously low like we are seeing right now. But its a good thing you're here to defend those billionaires.[/QUOTE]They are opposed to billionaires paying a lower tax rate than the average American. Already addressed this in another thread. The "average American" has basically no federal income tax liability and their taxes consist almost completely of payroll taxes (which they get back in transfer payments) or local sales/local taxes. The rest is due to capital gains being lower than income taxes because they aren't indexed to inflation and the lower rate accounts for that. Fix your own regressive state taxation and stop charging your urban residents double digit sales taxes and this "problem" would disappear as it's of your own making.
If you repeal taxes without increasing them somewhere else, you lose money. Gotta tax someone, and taxes have to increase somewhere if they decrease somewhere else.
And one that would create a new problem, local governments not having sufficient funds to provide public services. So yes, I'd be fine with eliminating regressive local taxes so long as they are replaced with progressive taxes. And I think AOC would agree with this as well.Repeal your regressive state local and sales taxes and you'll have your wish. That's the cause of the problem you're complaining about.
Who wants to increase taxes on the middle class? Hint: Its not democrats or people like AOC. It is republicans. Democrats want to increase taxes on the wealthy. No one wants to force people to live $1 above the poverty line. We want people to live on $2 million per year instead of $4 million per year. We want billionaires to pay a tax rate at least comparable to everyday Americans. If you are concerned about the living conditions of the middle class, you're attacking the wrong people.
Simple math... Taxing the top 5% won't pay to depoverty the bottom 50.
Where were you this past year? AOC personally proposed a 70% tax rate. It's bad enough I'm in the 25% bracket.
How would AOC's proposal affect you?
Unless you earn over $10 million annually, your tax bill wouldn't be affected by Ocasio-Cortez's proposal at all. And even if you're one of the lucky 0.01% of Americans who earn more than $10 million, your income tax wouldn't jump to 70%; the top rate would only apply to your taxable income beyond $10 million.
Simple math... Taxing the top 5% won't pay to depoverty the bottom 50.
Where were you this past year? AOC personally proposed a 70% tax rate. It's bad enough I'm in the 25% bracket.
State and federal taxes go to different things, and I'm not an economist, but how does reducing taxes magically make money still exist for the govt to spend? I'm talking about shifting the burden of the tax requirements from the poor to the rich.Yeah, and your point is? If your complaint is about overall tax burden paid by poors vs the rich then the way to address that is to reduce the taxes making the poor pay more. Artificially raising federal income tax rates just so you can feel better about paying 15% of your money to your state isn't the way to address the "problem" you see.