I think you wanted to post it on r/politics.
US effective tax rates (actual amount collected) has not changed much and stayed in pretty tight band. All she is doing is riling up the base with 0 economic underpinning of her ideasp
A lot of nuance and understanding of the issues in your post, sorry I was a bit daft before. It’s much clearer now, thanks!
A “minor in Econ” = “understand economics”
To be fair, I’m pretty skeptical that anyone actually understands the economy.
False.
^Randy for President. I have to say though, that clip provides no argument that I am not skeptical about people’s understanding of the economy.
-
first of these types of polices should be eased in. so you cant just go from 40 to 60 in a drop of a hat.
-
second, you should prolly tighten capital controls to prevent brain drain. and capital flight.
-
technically the highest marginal tax rate is 60%, and its by sweden, and they are doing swell!
as far as effective tax rates in the us historical:
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
we are running a trillion deficit, with 20 trillion in debt. we need to increase taxes or cut spending. you can either increase taxes on the rich and take their freedom to choose on how to spend their money, or cut spending on the old and poor and watch them die.
personally i feel there is nothing wrong with taxing rich people more to pay for a deficit. but there is also nothing wrong with letting people die as oppose to subsidizing unproductive people to make more unproductive people. its just a lifestyle choice! but escalating teh debt and deficit is unfair to future generations.
also i feel that creating new higher brackets with higher marginal tax rates is better than simply increasing the marginal tax rates at each bracket.for example if we have a 100% marginal tax rate for people making over 1b/year. only 4 ppl are affected. and that would generate approximately 2b. of course what would likely happen is that they will cut that person’s salary and pay everyone else below them just a little more. that’s prolly a better way to increase productivity.
Renaissance Technologies’ Jim Simons topped the list, earning $1.7 billion, followed by Appaloosa Management’s David Tepper with $1.5 billion. Citadel’s Ken Griffin brought home $1.4 billion and Bridgewater Associates’ Ray Dalio made $1.3 billion.
Agreed for every part except for #1, there isn’t any reason why it can’t come into effect immediately. Both Trump’s, W’s, and Reagan’s tax changes when into effect the next year, no reason we can’t do it again.
also just so people see margina ltax rates: highest was 94%.
In 1944-45, “the most progressive tax years in U.S. history,” the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 ($2.4 million in 2009 dollars, given inflation). In World War Two, tax law revisions increased the numbers of “those paying some income taxes” from 7% of the U.S. population (1940) to 64% by 1944.
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24489
historical marginal rates below!
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates
ray dalio opines:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/ray-dalio-says-us-tax-changes-will-have-huge-impact-on-markets.html
“How tax rates are changed will have a huge effect on incentives and could have a huge effect on capital flows, and that will have big effects on markets and economies,” Dalio said in an interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. “It’s going to be a bigger market-influencing issue than people now realize.”
In November, he pointed out that the top 1/10th of 1 percent have a net worth equal to 90 percent of the population, a situation similar to the 1930s.
“This polarity issue — the income and opportunity gap — will determine who is elected and what approaches are going to be used to deal with that issue,” Dalio said. “We have entered the presidential election cycle in which different policies and their probabilities of getting enacted to deal with this income-opportunity gap issue will be really important; probably the most important issue of our time.”
Dalio made the comments in response to a question about Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to roughly double the top tax rate, which she made during a recent interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” The idea appears to have bipartisan support: A recent poll found that 59 percent of voters were in favor of the idea, and even 45 percent of Republicans signaled approval.
“We’re in agreement on the problem that’s behind that suggestion,” Dalio said. “We have to make capitalism work for the majority of Americans. I don’t know that we’re in agreement on the mechanics.”
“If we’re to have a 70 percent marginal tax rate, most individuals affected by it will calculate whether they should instead operate as a corporation in order try to convert ordinary income to capital gains, so I wonder how that will be handled,” Dalio said. “And I wonder what will be done to influence whether capital will leave the country.”
Some interesting info from the CBO today – but again, please tell me how it’s the Dem’s who don’t understand economics. The Trump tax cut has been a massive give away to the elite, for little to no economic gain.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2019-01/54918-Outlook.pdf
"CBO’s projections, federal revenues rise from 16.5 percent of GDP in 2019 to 17.4 percent in 2025 and then grow more rapidly, reaching 18.3 percent of GDP near the end of the decade. The projected growth in revenues after 2025 is largely attributable to the scheduled expiration of nearly all of the individual income tax provisions of the 2017 tax act "
" The Economy. Real GDP is projected to grow by 2.3 percent in 2019—down from 3.1 percent in 2018—as the effects of the 2017 tax act on the growth of business investment wane and federal purchases, as projected under current law, decline sharply in the fourth quarter of 2019."
alsoi really think we need to go beyond this idea of giving tax breaks to elites. at the end of the day this is really an issue between future elites vs current elites. if the old elite dont want to pay taxes and continue the deficit, then our debt will grow. eventually, further down into the future, the future elites will have to pay that debt plus interest. the old elites who have amassed their wealth, on the other hand, may choose to renounce their citizenship in order to avoid that debt.
roughly 75% of the us working population is net negative if not de minimis from a tax perspective.
I’m 100% in for the Green New Deal. No more farting cows.
For the record–I’m not a Republican. But I found it hard not to laugh when I read this article, because I think it’s 100% right.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-socialist-that-could-11549583738
The Republican Party has a secret weapon for 2020. It’s especially effective because it’s stealthy: The Democrats seem oblivious to its power. And the GOP needn’t lift a finger for it to work. All Republicans have to do is sit back and watch 29-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez . . . exist.
AOC, as she’s better known, today exists largely in front of the cameras. In a few months she’s gone from an unknown New York bartender to the democratic socialist darling of the left and its media hordes. Her megaphone is so loud that she rivals Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the face of the Democratic Party. Republicans don’t know whether to applaud or laugh. Most do both.
For them, what’s not to love? She’s set off a fratricidal war on the left, with her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, this week slamming the “radical conservatives” among the Democrats holding the party “hostage.” She’s made friends with Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, who has been accused of anti-Semitism. She’s called the American system of wealth creation “immoral” and believes government has a duty to provide “economic security” to people who are “unwilling to work.” As a representative of New York, she’s making California look sensible.
On Thursday Ms. Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her vaunted Green New Deal, complete with the details of how Democrats plan to reach climate nirvana in a mere 10 years. It came in the form of a resolution, sponsored in the Senate by Massachusetts’ Edward Markey, on which AOC is determined to force a full House vote. That means every Democrat in Washington will get to go on the record in favor of abolishing air travel, outlawing steaks, forcing all American homeowners to retrofit their houses, putting every miner, oil rigger, livestock rancher and gas-station attendant out of a job, and spending trillions and trillions more tax money. Oh, also for government-run health care, which is somehow a prerequisite for a clean economy.
It’s a GOP dream, especially because the media presented her plan with a straight face—as a legitimate proposal from a legitimate leader in the Democratic Party. Republicans are thrilled to treat it that way in the march to 2020, as their set-piece example of what Democrats would do to the economy and average Americans if given control. The Green New Deal encapsulates everything Americans fear from government, all in one bonkers resolution.
It is for starters, a massive plan for the government to take over and micromanage much the economy. Take the central plank, its diktat of producing 100% of U.S. electricity “through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” by 2030. As Ron Bailey at Reason has noted, a 2015 plan from Stanford envisioning the goal called for the installation of 154,000 offshore wind turbines, 335,000 onshore wind turbines, 75 million residential photovoltaic (solar) systems, 2.75 million commercial solar systems, and 46,000 utility-scale solar facilities. AOC has been clear it will be government building all this, not the private sector.
And that might be the easy part. According to an accompanying fact sheet, the Green New Deal would also get rid of combustion engines, “build charging stations everywhere,” “upgrade or replace every building in U.S.,” do the same with all “infrastructure,” and crisscross the nation with “high-speed rail.”
Buried in the details, the Green New Deal also promises government control of the most fundamental aspects of private life. The fact sheet explains why the resolution doesn’t call for “banning fossil fuels” or for “zero” emissions across the entire economy—at least at first. It’s because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast” (emphasis mine).
This is an acknowledgment that planes don’t run on anything but fossil fuel. No jet fuel, no trips to see granny. It’s also an acknowledgment that livestock produce methane, which has led climate alarmists to engage in “meatless Mondays.” AOC may not prove able to eradicate “fully” every family Christmas or strip of bacon in a decade, but that’s the goal.
Finally, the resolution is Democratic math at its best. It leaves out a price tag, and is equally vague on what kind of taxes would be needed to cover the cost. But it would run to tens of trillions of dollars. The fact sheet asserts the cost shouldn’t worry anyone, since the Federal Reserve can just “extend credit” to these projects! And “new public banks can be created to extend credit,” too! And Americans will get lots of “shared prosperity” from their “investments.” À la Solyndra.
At least some Democrats seem to be aware of what a danger this is, which is why Ms. Pelosi threw some cold water on the Green New Deal this week. They should be scared. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a freight train gaining speed by the day—and helping Republicans with every passing minute.
I’m happy we at least have another representative that acknowledges scientists over their gut – that realizes climate change is real.
The current version of the Green New Deal isn’t going to be successful, but she’s a freshman rep - the goal isn’t to set policy, but influence it. She’s brought climate change into the conversation more than most other people.
If the climate changes, so be it, #imwithbigoil
If I went to the White House, stripped down to my birthday suit and slapped DJT in the face with my ding-dong, would you applaud me for bringing gender identity issues to his attention?
Why do you get so upset with the mention of climate change? Are you rooting for mother nature over humans?
I’d be nice to propose a plan that wouldn’t devastate the economy though.
Makes the dems look like a joke, even Pelosi refers to it as “the green dream or whatever”.