It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ocasio-Cortez suggests individual tax rates as high as 70%
page: 6share:
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
Sometimes, I think you don't even read what you write.
We all have a limited number of hours to work in a day, week, month. That time is absolutely the same no matter how rich or poor you might be. When the government says that 70% of your working time is effectively spent only to fund them, why on earth do you bother?
You pay tax now, why bother?
Why doesn’t everybody pack up and move?
a reply to: Dwoodward85
We don't even have to look at the UK, we have it happening in a few of our states already.
Illinois is a perfect example of what will happen. Eventually the money does run out, then the blame game starts.
then exodus, then panic (Illinois is almost at that point)
We don't even have to look at the UK, we have it happening in a few of our states already.
Illinois is a perfect example of what will happen. Eventually the money does run out, then the blame game starts.
then exodus, then panic (Illinois is almost at that point)
Because nobody is advocating that...
Are you scared of people who earn over $10M entering into a 70% tax bracket?
Are you scared of people who earn over $10M entering into a 70% tax bracket?
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
Actually just did that, and yes i was mistaken, its been a long while since i was reading up on it
Actually just did that, and yes i was mistaken, its been a long while since i was reading up on it
originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
Actually just did that, and yes i was mistaken, its been a long while since i was reading up on it
You don’t say...
But you said it with such conviction.
Just kidding man, it’s all good.
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
Most of us admit that some tax is necessary, but we also expect that we will be able to keep the lion's share of what we work hard to make.
When you threaten to cross the 50% mark on that, you start to cross the line from the idea that the people are sovereign and fund the government because we all admit some is necessary to the idea that the government is sovereign and we are merely it's serfs, kept as it chooses.
I know that in the halls of Congress our wages that we bring home are referred to as "untaxed revenue" meaning they regard all money made in this country as theirs, but without access to the fruits of your labor, you really have no liberty at all. I can't help you if you don't see that.
Most of us admit that some tax is necessary, but we also expect that we will be able to keep the lion's share of what we work hard to make.
When you threaten to cross the 50% mark on that, you start to cross the line from the idea that the people are sovereign and fund the government because we all admit some is necessary to the idea that the government is sovereign and we are merely it's serfs, kept as it chooses.
I know that in the halls of Congress our wages that we bring home are referred to as "untaxed revenue" meaning they regard all money made in this country as theirs, but without access to the fruits of your labor, you really have no liberty at all. I can't help you if you don't see that.
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
Because nobody is advocating that...
Are you scared of people who earn over $10M entering into a 70% tax bracket?
Why are you scared of people who make that much keeping most of it?
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
Most of us admit that some tax is necessary, but we also expect that we will be able to keep the lion's share of what we work hard to make.
When you threaten to cross the 50% mark on that, you start to cross the line from the idea that the people are sovereign and fund the government because we all admit some is necessary to the idea that the government is sovereign and we are merely it's serfs, kept as it chooses.
I know that in the halls of Congress our wages that we bring home are referred to as "untaxed revenue" meaning they regard all money made in this country as theirs, but without access to the fruits of your labor, you really have no liberty at all. I can't help you if you don't see that.
I actually agree with what you said and it was written pretty elequontly as well.
FWIW there is no “one size fits all” tax you could implement, ever. The tax policies that would work best for me, won’t work best for you and vice versa.
I can promise you and I agree on more than we disagree on in regards to this issue.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
Because nobody is advocating that...
Are you scared of people who earn over $10M entering into a 70% tax bracket?
Why are you scared of people who make that much keeping most of it?
I’m not, but I realize that when the system is made for the haves and not the have-nots.
If you keep lowering the tax on the wealthy in this country, you’re passing the burden onto the lower and middle-class to make up the shortfall.
A lot of times the arguement against higher taxes is that the cost gets passed along to the consumer. While this is true to some extent, it’s generally the exception because markets only charge what they can charge. I can’t think of any consumer who purchases a product based upon what the owner pays in taxes. So as an individual, any time a company raises the price on something you have the free-will to determine if you will purchase the product. There is a limit on price, and there is free will to purchase.
You do not have the same free-will when it comes to taxation. You have to pay. The haves will always work within the system to pay the least amount possible (I have no problem with that). You don’t incentivize that behavior though, because the Federal Government WILL NOT go without (nor should an individual want it to). So what they lose out on from the rich, they make up from the poor.
It’s a balancing act, no doubt.
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
If you want to create a system that incentives people to strive to succeed, removing the lion's share of what they will earn is not the way to do it.
If I want to be upwardly mobile, and I do, why would I agree with the concept of ever larger penalties on those who have succeeded more than I have? Why would I do that especially when I know that the government cannot spend the money it takes in responsibly. In case you haven't been paying attention, even with the horrific tax cuts, the Fed is still bringing in record taxes and it *still* isn't enough for the kleptocrats.
I think until they can bring their own spending under control, no one should have to pay them more at any level, on any scale. Not only that, but I want to see the spending actually do some good rather than simply line the pockets of bureaucrats.
If you want to create a system that incentives people to strive to succeed, removing the lion's share of what they will earn is not the way to do it.
If I want to be upwardly mobile, and I do, why would I agree with the concept of ever larger penalties on those who have succeeded more than I have? Why would I do that especially when I know that the government cannot spend the money it takes in responsibly. In case you haven't been paying attention, even with the horrific tax cuts, the Fed is still bringing in record taxes and it *still* isn't enough for the kleptocrats.
I think until they can bring their own spending under control, no one should have to pay them more at any level, on any scale. Not only that, but I want to see the spending actually do some good rather than simply line the pockets of bureaucrats.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
If you want to create a system that incentives people to strive to succeed, removing the lion's share of what they will earn is not the way to do it.
If I want to be upwardly mobile, and I do, why would I agree with the concept of ever larger penalties on those who have succeeded more than I have? Why would I do that especially when I know that the government cannot spend the money it takes in responsibly. In case you haven't been paying attention, even with the horrific tax cuts, the Fed is still bringing in record taxes and it *still* isn't enough for the kleptocrats.
I think until they can bring their own spending under control, no one should have to pay them more at any level, on any scale. Not only that, but I want to see the spending actually do some good rather than simply line the pockets of bureaucrats.
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat it (actually this will be my last), but nobody is turning down promotions because they enter a higher tax bracket.
Nobody on this board is happy that they’re not in the 37% bracket, I can assure you. If they had a 99% bracket and you didn’t aspire to that financially, there’s no hope.
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: projectvxn
Only a socialist thief believes that confiscating 1/2 or more of someone's income is moral.
At what percentage does taxation become socialistic? What level does it become capitalistic?
That's not even remotely the issue.
These levels are confiscatory and without justification. I don't have to qualify this idiocy, they do.
Once you start confiscating the wealth of the people outright to redistribute to others it is socialism. Once you seize the means of production it is socialism.
originally posted by: projectvxn
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: projectvxn
Only a socialist thief believes that confiscating 1/2 or more of someone's income is moral.
At what percentage does taxation become socialistic? What level does it become capitalistic?
That's not even remotely the issue.
These levels are confiscatory and without justification. I don't have to qualify this idiocy, they do.
Once you start confiscating the wealth of the people outright to redistribute to others it is socialism. Once you seize the means of production it is socialism.
So, you’re okay with some level of taxation? Just not 70% on money made above $10M?
So we are in a socialistic country currently, right? Because the money gathered in taxation is currently being redistributed to both individuals and businesses.
This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!
All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
If you want to sling MUD....this is the place:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and, as always:
Do NOT reply to this post!!
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
Not a promotion, but I have turned down overtime. I turned down mandatory overtime before because of tax brackets.
At a job I used to have, there was a point where I would bring home x amount if I worked y number of hours. If I worked a half hour more, the take home amount would actually decrease. Once I found that, I simply explained to my boss at the time that I would not be working more than y hours and why. That included mandatory overtime. So sad, too bad; I do not work for free. I'll take that extra few hours and spend them sleeping before I do.
Your premise is unrealistic. Of course, no one would turn down a promotion that was simply a raise in salary because their taxes would go up. But we're (hopefully) not talking about that (I say hopefully because if we are, we're talking about overtaxing normal wage-earners at these ridiculous rates). Once a person passes a point in the corporate ladder, job a is not like job b. So if I were, let's use round numbers, making $3M a year doing job a, which required me to actually work maybe 50 hours a week, and I were offered a promotion making $4M a year working an average of 55 hours a week but with more headaches, I might consider that worth it; it's an extra million bucks a year. But now let's include taxes: If my take-home from the job I have is like $2M and the new job puts me in a higher tax bracket so I would only be making $2.5M after taxes... wait, I'm only really making 1/2 million extra for the extra time and headaches. No thank you!
Yeah, those numbers are probably blowing your mind right now... who in their right mind would turn down $500,000 a year?!? A lot of people would, if the money is superfluous (meaning they make a comfortable amount already) and they place high value on their time and peace of mind.
But even that's not the issue. The issue is this: If I have a small business and let's say I'm making that same $3M, bringing home $2M, with 20 employees, and I am thinking of expanding, what am I looking at? Well, each one of those 20 employees is a certain amount of headache. My expansion, let's say, involves me hiring 10 more employees and spending $10M. When it is done I am expecting to make $4M, but now after taxes I will only be bringing home $2.5M. You know, I already have a lot of stress and little time with my family, so screw that noise... we'll just stay with what we have. The extra money isn't worth it. So 10 people are now without a job, and they're paying zero in taxes (less, really, because they're probably getting government benefits).
That's what we are talking about. Your points are based on expected actions by those who would not even be directly affected by the taxation rates. As such, they are irrelevant. The effect of such a tax hike, in the example above, is that 10 less jobs will be created; the business owner will still make good money; $10M will not be spent stimulating the economy; and the government will lose out because they will collect no additional money and will still be saddled with providing assistance to 10 people. That's what you are advocating. The higher the proposed tax hike goes, the more likely it becomes that businesses simply will not expand.
I have seen these ideas come and go all my life. Every time they are tried in the slightest way, they fail. Every tax hike causes a slowdown in certain economic sectors. And yet, we have people still promoting the same tired old thinking, thinking they have come up with some new, exciting, never-before-thought-of solution to all the world's ills, all the while being as clueless as a blind cricket in a chicken pen.
TheRedneck
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat it (actually this will be my last), but nobody is turning down promotions because they enter a higher tax bracket.
Not a promotion, but I have turned down overtime. I turned down mandatory overtime before because of tax brackets.
At a job I used to have, there was a point where I would bring home x amount if I worked y number of hours. If I worked a half hour more, the take home amount would actually decrease. Once I found that, I simply explained to my boss at the time that I would not be working more than y hours and why. That included mandatory overtime. So sad, too bad; I do not work for free. I'll take that extra few hours and spend them sleeping before I do.
Your premise is unrealistic. Of course, no one would turn down a promotion that was simply a raise in salary because their taxes would go up. But we're (hopefully) not talking about that (I say hopefully because if we are, we're talking about overtaxing normal wage-earners at these ridiculous rates). Once a person passes a point in the corporate ladder, job a is not like job b. So if I were, let's use round numbers, making $3M a year doing job a, which required me to actually work maybe 50 hours a week, and I were offered a promotion making $4M a year working an average of 55 hours a week but with more headaches, I might consider that worth it; it's an extra million bucks a year. But now let's include taxes: If my take-home from the job I have is like $2M and the new job puts me in a higher tax bracket so I would only be making $2.5M after taxes... wait, I'm only really making 1/2 million extra for the extra time and headaches. No thank you!
Yeah, those numbers are probably blowing your mind right now... who in their right mind would turn down $500,000 a year?!? A lot of people would, if the money is superfluous (meaning they make a comfortable amount already) and they place high value on their time and peace of mind.
But even that's not the issue. The issue is this: If I have a small business and let's say I'm making that same $3M, bringing home $2M, with 20 employees, and I am thinking of expanding, what am I looking at? Well, each one of those 20 employees is a certain amount of headache. My expansion, let's say, involves me hiring 10 more employees and spending $10M. When it is done I am expecting to make $4M, but now after taxes I will only be bringing home $2.5M. You know, I already have a lot of stress and little time with my family, so screw that noise... we'll just stay with what we have. The extra money isn't worth it. So 10 people are now without a job, and they're paying zero in taxes (less, really, because they're probably getting government benefits).
That's what we are talking about. Your points are based on expected actions by those who would not even be directly affected by the taxation rates. As such, they are irrelevant. The effect of such a tax hike, in the example above, is that 10 less jobs will be created; the business owner will still make good money; $10M will not be spent stimulating the economy; and the government will lose out because they will collect no additional money and will still be saddled with providing assistance to 10 people. That's what you are advocating. The higher the proposed tax hike goes, the more likely it becomes that businesses simply will not expand.
I have seen these ideas come and go all my life. Every time they are tried in the slightest way, they fail. Every tax hike causes a slowdown in certain economic sectors. And yet, we have people still promoting the same tired old thinking, thinking they have come up with some new, exciting, never-before-thought-of solution to all the world's ills, all the while being as clueless as a blind cricket in a chicken pen.
TheRedneck
new topics
-
Signing back up
Introductions: 6 hours ago
top topics
-
And Here Come the Excuses!!
General Conspiracies: 15 hours ago, 18 flags -
Another blow to Legacy Media
Propaganda Mill: 16 hours ago, 8 flags -
Drones over New Jersey
Aliens and UFOs: 15 hours ago, 8 flags -
ILLUMINATION – Reverse Perception Of Cyclic Probability – CEO ASSASSINATION
Secret Societies: 16 hours ago, 5 flags -
Signing back up
Introductions: 6 hours ago, 4 flags
active topics
-
ILLUMINATION – Reverse Perception Of Cyclic Probability – CEO ASSASSINATION
Secret Societies • 12 • : Compendium -
As dictator of health care
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 18 • : billxam1 -
And Here Come the Excuses!!
General Conspiracies • 85 • : billxam1 -
Signing back up
Introductions • 16 • : GENERAL EYES -
music for the apocalypse
Music • 24 • : annonentity -
Rant. I am sick of people saying the police are revenue raising.
Rant • 4 • : inflaymes69 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3599 • : duncanagain -
Drones everywhere in New Jersey
Aliens and UFOs • 50 • : some_stupid_name -
Drones over New Jersey
Aliens and UFOs • 19 • : HatesFreshAir -
United Healthcare Shooting Suspect Nabbed in Pennsylvania
Mainstream News • 118 • : WeMustCare