Ocasio-Cortez Demands 70% Tax to Pay for her Climate Change Policies

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appears to take inspiration from past efforts to confiscate wealth.

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

By Sahil Kapur
5 January 2019, 04:56 GMT+10

Progressive House Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for a sharp tax hike on the highest incomes in order to fund a massive “Green New Deal” plan that would phase out fossil fuels by 2030, as she tries to push the political debate to the left.

“It’s ambitious,” the New York Representative told 60 Minutes in an interview scheduled to air Sunday. “It’s going to require a lot of rapid change that we don’t even conceive as possible right now.”

Asked how high taxes should be set, Ocasio-Cortez didn’t specify a figure but offered praise for policies in the past that set top marginal rates as high as 70 percent. The current top income tax rate is 37 percent.

“Once you get to, like, the tippy tops — on your 10 millionth dollar — sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent,” she said. “That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more.”

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-04/ocasio-cortez-says-70-ultra-rich-tax-could-pay-for-climate-plan

I guess we can no longer say Ocasio-Cortez has not thought about how to fund her new green deal.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
400 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 5, 2019 2:06 pm

Occasional Cortex says ‘give us most of your money, trust us, and we will fix this problem that we just dreamed up for you, eventually.’

Reply to  nicholas william tesdorf
January 5, 2019 2:44 pm

No cerebral cortex functioning there even occasionally, however those of kidneys, adrenal glands and the thymus appear to be fine more often than just occasionally.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  vukcevic
January 5, 2019 7:02 pm

She has some other glands that are truly outstanding.

Menicholas
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 5, 2019 7:51 pm

Sandy Ocrazio Cortez was far less unpleasant in her previous incarnation is an internet roof-dancing phenom.
She has acquired a grating tone that is extremely unpleasant.

Greg
Reply to  Menicholas
January 5, 2019 9:32 pm

taxing the extremely wealthy is a great idea. Just a shame to blow it all on a non existent problem.

As Lomborg says, it would be better to help people now than worry about some hypothetical projections of what may happen 3 or 4 generation down the line.

Now if they opened up health care insurance to some true competition the middle class would all be a lot better off.

fred250
Reply to  Menicholas
January 6, 2019 2:39 am

“taxing the extremely wealthy is a great idea. ”

What do Al Gore and DiCaprio and all the Hollywood stars think of the idea..

Or are they exempt?

iflyjetzzz
Reply to  Menicholas
January 6, 2019 4:46 am

fred, private jets and big yachts should be banned ‘to save the earth’ from CAGW. https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/27/new-york-times-private-jets/

Burning fossil fuels is only a problem when the other guy’s burning them. When Gore, DeCaprio, et al burn fossil fuels, it’s righteous.

Greg, the wealthy will just shelter their wealth. The optimum tax rate is the highest percentage where the wealthy don’t send it overseas. There’s still a lot of money that flees the US.

MarkW
Reply to  Menicholas
January 6, 2019 8:34 am

Another example of how the left feels that as long as someone has more than I do, it’s ok to steal from them and spend the money on themselves.

Allencic
Reply to  Menicholas
January 6, 2019 8:58 am

The definition of “wealthy” is, of course, anyone who makes a dollar more than you do.

John Endicott
Reply to  Menicholas
January 7, 2019 9:33 am

taxing the extremely wealthy is a great idea

Greg, while that may sound fine in theory, it ignores a very important inconvenient fact – the extremely wealth have options. They can shelter their money from the tax man and they can move to more favorable tax climates any time they want.

It also ignores another very important inconvenient fact -there isn’t enough money among the extremely wealthy to pay for all of the socialist wet dream ideas the left have been pushing even if you could take 100% of their wealth.

Sara
Reply to  vukcevic
January 5, 2019 8:13 pm

Let me see: tax the stinking rich at 70% to pay for her bright ideas…

Okay, how much of that is coming out of her pockets????

Has she discussed this with anyone besides her own image in the bathroom mirror? Seriously, you’re the new kid on the block and you think you’re smarter than the kids who have been there awhile, and you didn’t talk to them about your brilliant ideas first?????

She is obviously a Big Fan of the Good Idea Fairy. As I understand it, the Good Idea Fairy just loves to yank the rug out from under people like this.

Anyone besides me think that either Pelosi or DiFi is willing to fork over 70% of their cash to this Brillian Concept? Yeah, me neither.

Wally
Reply to  Sara
January 6, 2019 8:15 am

“tax the stinking rich at 70% to pay for her bright ideas…”
LOL
No, it’s not just “the rich” who will pay, if they pay at all.
It also means the lower brackets will pay much more, i.e.:
69% for the next bracket
68% for the bracket below that
67% for the bracket below
etc, etc.
That’s how we’ll see the middle class nailed with massive tax rate increases.
That’s exactly how it would work.
It’s all about the makers supporting the takers.
Already ca. 50% of US workers pay ZERO, ZERO federal income taxes while they rake in free everything as if they did.
Now what’s this about taxation & representation?

Almost forgot to mention …. the illegals who pay nothing and take everything.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Wally
January 6, 2019 8:38 am

Exactly. The income tax was sold as a means to keep people from getting too rich and would, in 1933 dollars, be collected from only the top 1.3%, or was it 3%, of all the residents of the U.S. Through fully intended unintended consequences income tax is now assessed against all wage earners who have worked more than a ~month during the year, which is especially hard on college students who are typically unmarried, have no children, do not own a home, nor make contributions of any kind; in other words can avail of no tax dodges available to even the low income middle class. So it’s almost impossible for them to avoid it. And I was a college student 40 years ago, it’s probably even worse now.

MarkW
Reply to  Wally
January 6, 2019 1:18 pm

Considering the fact that the bottom 50% of income tax earners only pay about 1% of all income taxes, I’d be extremely surprised if there are any college students who don’t get it all back (and maybe then some) at the end of the year.

John Endicott
Reply to  Wally
January 8, 2019 6:47 am

bottom 50% pay 2.8% according to
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/
but your point remains the same, the vast majority of income taxes come from the top 50% (97.2% of all income tax)

top 1% paid 39% of income taxes
top 10% paid 70.6% of income taxes
top 50% paid 97.2% of income taxes
bottom 50% paid 2.8% of income taxes

in comparison

top 1% had 20.6% of income
top 10% had 47.4% of income
top 50% had 88.7% of income
bottom 50% had 11.3% of income

Richard Patton
Reply to  Sara
January 6, 2019 4:38 pm

Everyone in Congress will exempt themselves-they always do.

LdB
Reply to  Richard Patton
January 7, 2019 7:12 pm

All those who can afford it simply move to avoid it 🙂

Goldrider
Reply to  nicholas william tesdorf
January 5, 2019 3:50 pm

Which is why it’s not a good idea to elect 29 year old bartenders to Congress. But the bar seems to be dropped pretty low these days, pardon the pun. Too much emotion, not enough common sense. Somebody needs to take a few of these newbs down to Catacomb 33 under the Capitol building and EXPLAIN a few things to ’em–start with middle-school math and physics.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Goldrider
January 5, 2019 6:04 pm

Democrats’ absolute low bar … DNE.
There is always another level of Hell into which they can take a society if allowed to.
To wit: Venezuela – where new desperate lows are found every day.

Greg
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 5, 2019 9:38 pm

Most but not all of the problems in Venezuela are because the US is trying to strangle its economy. You may argue about the merits and justifications of doing that but don’t blame the govt of the country whose economy you are actively trying to destroy for not running its economy properly.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Greg
January 5, 2019 11:06 pm

LOL

brians356
Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2019 12:36 am

Greg, that’s rich. You’re one funny guy.

2hotel9
Reply to  brians356
January 6, 2019 8:47 am

Greg? All of Venezuela’s problems are caused by its own government. Get a clue.

Menicholas
Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2019 1:19 am

Greg…You so FUNNY!

drednicolson
Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2019 2:19 am

Socialism only fails because greedy capitalists keep sabotaging it, amirite.

Couldn’t possibly be from any fundamental flaws in the system itself, oh no.

Gamecock
Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2019 5:46 am

Greg, Antonio Gramsci warned you people about cultural hegemony 80 years ago. That is to say, he predicted the revolution in Venezuela would fail 80 years ago.

To say that “problems in Venezuela are because the US is trying to strangle its economy” is ignorant to an astounding level. Which says you are not an intellectual leader over your movement, but rather just another useful idiot.

To wit: -Cortez. She probably is too. But it’s possible that she is surrounded by so many Leftards who agree with her that she believes cultural hegemony has been achieved, and what she suggests is going to roll in with ease. It may play well in NYC, and with her constituency. They did vote for her.

Meanwhile, in fly-over country, she is preposterous, ignorant of the 20th century. Socialism is the politics of 8 year olds. You really said, “Most but not all of the problems in Venezuela are because the US.” We have it here, now documented for all time.
I hope you live long enough to realize some day what a tool you are.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2019 8:32 am

So another acolyte of the church of It-Doesn’t-Matter-What-Happens-In-The-World-It’s-Our(U.S.)-Fault worship center. At this point I am unaware of U.S. imposed sanctions against Venezuela. Can you please enlighten us? Legislation? Executive Orders? Regulations? State Department Directives? References of any kind?

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2019 8:36 am

Greg, you have really OD’d on the kool-aid. There is no US embargo on Venezuela.
Never has been. Like most leftists you can’t accept the fact that socialism doesn’t work, so you always invent new boogymen to blame for it’s failures.

Sara
Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2019 9:36 am

Greg, you incredible ignoramus. Everything that is wrong with Venezuela is YOUR FAULT.

I feel much better now.

hunter
Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2019 9:39 am

Having family in Venezuela, and having followed Vz a lot more than you, I can say without hesitation that you have no idea how wrong you are.

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2019 1:20 pm

hunter, I doubt that Greg cares how wrong he is.
His goal is to try and blame the failures of socialism on anyone other than the socialists.

Gamecock
Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2019 7:25 pm

This just in:

‘Socialism is becoming more normalized among Americans who identify as Democrats, according to a recent poll, as their approval of capitalism falls at the same time.’ – Breitbart

Again, their problem is that 80% of the people don’t want it. It is impossible to implement without broad support. So the Democrats public face for the time being is a philosophy that most abhor. What do they think the upside is ???

Lee L
Reply to  Greg
January 13, 2019 9:49 pm

Perhaps my data is out of date but of all the paying customers for Venezuelan oil, the one that buys the most of it ( 40%?), isn’t that the ,uhh.., United States of America?

Some strangler.

2hotel9
Reply to  Lee L
January 14, 2019 2:50 pm

And people conveniently forget about tHugo Chavez’s tactic to undermine US energy companies by supplying fuel oil to northeast states at massively reduced prices during winter months, all while crying about his starving people and demanding America ship him 100s of thousands of tons of wheat, corn and soybeans, which America did. He then merrily transshipped much of it to Cuba since his people at that point were not starving. A sweet little scam both Bush and Obama happily assisted him in.

Tom
Reply to  Goldrider
January 5, 2019 7:20 pm

“EXPLAIN a few things to ’em–start with middle-school math and physics.”

Unfortunately, middle school math and physics is far too late for her. Not understanding GRADE school math and physics make it nearly impossible to learn middle school math and physics.

I took my grade school math and physics in a one room country school with a teacher having but a two year teaching certificate. She had me build a sling psychrometer for a 5th grade science project. I probably learned more about math and physics from that project alone, than Occasional and her contemporaries learn in their entire school career. It demonstrated water vapor, relative humidity, evaporation, airflow, centrifugal force, reading thermometers, accuracy, math tables, and more. It was enough to make one understand why CAGW is a fraud, in one simple lesson.

Dean
Reply to  Tom
January 5, 2019 11:49 pm

I recall a hugely entertaining lecture where an post grad economics lecturer tried to explain to a bunch of engineers how it was possible for governments to continue to borrow forever to fund social programs.

Every time he tried to change from absolute values to percentages (which was often and required to make it sound plausible) the increasingly hawk-eyed and blood smelling students pointed out his errors. He went from an arrogant shite laughing at our questions to agreeing with us that is was not actually possible. That was the best 25 minutes in a lecture I have ever spent. He really cracked the shites when we then asked of any dodgy sounding assertation “Is this like that government borrowing error?”

Will
Reply to  Goldrider
January 5, 2019 9:34 pm

In Canada we elected a drama teacher as Prime Minister who declared his admiration of China because its a “basic dictatorship.” So…we got that going for us. He too wants to save the climate through the use of tax money, lots of it of course.

Flight Level
Reply to  Goldrider
January 5, 2019 11:30 pm

Aren’t politics a fascinating nonsense ? Probably the only job with zero qualification / aptitude requirements.

By analogy, just imagine the following pre-flight announcement:

-And now Ladies and Gentlemen, we will democratically proceed to the election of the first officer and captain for this flight, those interested in the positions, please stand-up.

Exactly what happens in politics at a much larger scale. A situation where elected non necessarily trained to the task individuals steer the destiny of millions of souls.

drednicolson
Reply to  Flight Level
January 6, 2019 10:57 am

The rub is that politics as the Founders’ saw it, was not a career in of itself. Holding a public office was, well, an office, not a job. They were businessmen, landowners, and/or tradesmen first and public servants second. Career politicians were almost unheard of and frowned on as opportunists bereft of principle.

Now careerism has nearly rotted politics through and seriously threatens the health of science.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Goldrider
January 6, 2019 4:33 am

Goldrider January 5, 2019 at 3:50 pm

Which is why it’s not a good idea to elect 29 year old bartenders to Congress.

Too much emotion, not enough common sense

I don’t think that being a “29 year old” …… or being a ”bartender” ….. has anything to do with an ever increasing problem of a dysfunctional US Congress.

Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, ….. just to name two (2) of the many, are not “29 year olds” …… or claim to have been ”bartenders”.

Emotional, …. rather than logical, ….. decision making is a biological inherited “survival instinct” that the females of a species will, …… more often than not, …. choose as a response when addressing a perceived problem.

Goldrider
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
January 6, 2019 8:35 am

I’ve handled a pack of, er, female hounds and that survival instinct you mention is right there. All you need to know about humans I’ve learned from animals, really . . .

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Goldrider
January 6, 2019 1:40 pm

“YUP”, most every “student of the natural world” is a lot smarted and experienced than students that are limited to “book learning”. 😊 😊

Neo
Reply to  nicholas william tesdorf
January 5, 2019 6:13 pm

This is the Congresscritter who had to run when asked if she was going give her salary to charity (her idea) during the shutdown.

Reply to  nicholas william tesdorf
January 6, 2019 1:16 am

All economic systems are imperfect, including capitalism – get over it. Capitalism is still infinitely better than the alternatives.

Leftists (aka Marxists, Progressives, Socialists, Greens, etc.) are the great killers of our age – Stalin and Mao killed about 130 million of their own people and Hitler killed more than 50 million in WW2. Then there are the lesser leftist killers, like Pol Pot in Cambodia. Greens have killed almost as many more with their phony wars against DDT/malaria and CO2/global warming.

Greens can also take credit for the food-for-fuels fiasco, the clear-cutting of the rainforest to grow sugar cane for ethanol and palm oil for biodiesel, the rapid draining of the Ogallala aquifer for corn ethanol and biodiesel, wind-and-bat-chopping wind turbines, runaway energy costs and reduced grid reliability, increased winter mortality and similar social and environmental disasters.

The question to ponder is:
“Are leftists really that stupid or is this green destruction part of their intended plan to destroy the economy and take control?”

Before you say “NO, of course not!”, consider Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and about 100 other failed countries in the world, where leftists obtained power through false promises, and then destroyed the economy and became dictators, ruling from the top with the help of the army, looking down on all the peasants. Is this just a remarkable coincidence, or is this their covert plan?

I think this is in fact the plan of the leadership of the Democratic Party in the USA, and similar leftist parties in the developed world. To believe the left is simply guilty of incredible stupidity is to assume that they are all total imbeciles. I suggest that nobody, with the possible exception of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is THAT stupid. This is planned.

JRF in Pensacola
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 6, 2019 6:50 am

It is a plan but it requires eliminating the Electoral College, which democrats proposed on Day One of their takeover of the House, and then disarming the citizenry through repeal of the Second Amendement which is another goal of, at least, the left wing of the Democrat Party.

The Electoral College and the Second Amendment are two unique methods to diffuse political power in the US and the left is beginning to realize just how much of a roadblock they are. Certainly, creation of three branches of government promotes that objective, with perhaps the Supreme Court being the most pivotal. The architects of the constitution, although flawed as we all are, were quite brilliant in their attempt to prevent centralization of political power to the point that it threatens individual liberty.

Communism IS evil and socialism IS just a step or two away.

(And my apologies if I am duplicating others’ thoughts later in the thread as I have not read it completely.)

JRF in Pensacola
Reply to  JRF in Pensacola
January 6, 2019 7:49 am

Ah, I see a comment later in the thread from rah, I believe, wondering if a goal of the left is a civil war. I have pondered the same for many years now and believe that, for the present, a less radical transformation is desired. Why? For one, the left is not structured nor strong enough to win a civil war. Yes, there is the SDS and DSA but their numbers are still small. Two, they hope that the Constitution and its diffusion of power principles, which stands in the way, will be negated in the near future and; three, the Second Amandment is a major concern for them because most of the 300+ million weapons in civilian hands are not in their hands. The real risk of civil war will rise when the population feels that the Consitution’s guarantee of individual liberty is threatened or abolished. Then civil war is a possibility. Timeframe? Not soon. Hopefully: never.

Reply to  JRF in Pensacola
January 6, 2019 1:57 pm

No other continuous government has lasted the 230 years of stability created by the US Constitution, in the history of the world.

One of the most important rules in the engineering profession goes like this: “If it ain’t broke, DON’T fix it!”

Our Constitution is working just fine, thanks, hands off…

drednicolson
Reply to  JRF in Pensacola
January 8, 2019 3:32 am

They can propose such things all they like, but unless 3/4 of the states agree to go along with it, it’s just empty posturing.

John Endicott
Reply to  drednicolson
January 8, 2019 6:55 am

It won’t even get as far as the states as 2/3rds of both the house and the Senate has to sign on board. That’s not happening anytime in the next two years (they don’t have 2/3rds support in the house let alone the senate where it’ll never even make it to the floor).

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 6, 2019 10:06 am

typo:
bird-and-bat-chopping wind turbines

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 6, 2019 11:25 am

Thank you JRF:

I travelled to East Germany many times, once thorough Checkpoint Charlie four months before the Berlin Wall fell and more times thereafter. Later I ran an energy project in Kazakstan, subsequently sold to the Chinese for US$4.2 billion. I also ran a company in Egypt, now worth several billion dollars, and spent time in Tunisia during Arab Spring. I co-financed the discovery of a mine at 14,000 feet elevation in South America, and also did business in Europe and Australia. In all, I conducted major business on six of the world’s seven continents.

Some observations about societies and governments, based a strong education and many decades of global experience:

The workers in the Former Soviet Union (FSU) had a saying:
“We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.”

After the reunification of Germany, there was a cultural clash between the West Germans, who have a strong work ethic, and the “Osties”, who do a great job of pretending to work, while doing little.

The fatal flaw of leftist governments is the excessive concentration of power at the top, and the tendency for sociopaths to seize leadership. “Progressives” fail to see this flaw, and despite the many horrific leftist holocausts of the 20th Century, somehow believe “It will be different this time”. It won’t.

Leftist governments quickly become phony-left dictatorships, often family-run cabals like North Korea, Cuba (and Canada?). A few people at the top benefit, and the majority soon become poor peasants, serving their masters. The leaders of these “bully societies” typically become brutal, top-down dictators, and that bully mentality then pervades the entire society (boss shouts at worker, worker shouts at wife, wife shouts at kid, kid kicks dog).

Another of my observations, not limited to the FSU but observed in many “bully societies”:
In bully societies, people don’t tell you the truth,, especially when there is a problem – everyone makes up a different story that sheds blame away from them. The result is informational dysfunction of the organization, whether it be a business, a government body, or whatever. That disinformation, along with centralized planning, is why leftist societies function so poorly.

Children in bully societies quickly learn that they will be hit if they tell the truth, so they become adept at lying at an early age. It is not surprising that polygraphs (lie detectors), which measure stress, only work in a handful of societies in the world – and it is also not surprising that these are the most prosperous societies on the planet.

I expect the left will take great offense at the above thoughts – I certainly hope they will – they are Lenin’s “useful idiots”. Dunning-Kruger-imbeciles, too stupid to know they are being manipulated by sociopaths.

The USA dodged a bullet when voters rejected Hillary and elected Trump. Canada and most other democracies got hit by that bullet, and are now declining rapidly under the weight of incompetent and destructive leftist kleptocracies.

MarkW
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 6, 2019 2:28 pm

The left claims that they care about the “common” man, yet the societies they build don’t trust the common man, isolating all power to a handful of elite who claim that their actions are on behalf of the “common” man, yet always end up enriching the elite at the expense of everyone else.

JRF in Pensacola
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 6, 2019 8:28 pm

Good thoughts, Allan. And when “Control the Message” evolves to “Control the People”, that is when Socialism takes the one or two steps to become Communism. You and I, plus others here, are old enough to remember the offenses of past socialistic/communistic governments; and, many of our younger citizens have had experience with fighting tyranny in various battlefields. However, many of our folks do not have that experience. I hope they do not gain it by having to live under a system that devalues the individual, has little regard for individual ingenuity and, in fact, has no regard for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

old white guy
Reply to  nicholas william tesdorf
January 6, 2019 4:56 am

Cortez, the new face of stupid in the democrat party.

Wally
Reply to  nicholas william tesdorf
January 6, 2019 7:56 am

Why do people make them seem reasonable by calling them “Progressives” when in fact they are “Communists”?

Call them what they are.

There’s nothing “progressive” about neo-Marxism.

R
Reply to  nicholas william tesdorf
January 6, 2019 10:20 am

Please, everyone, stop giving
Alexandra DING DING DING bat Cortez
so much publicity.

Compared with her,
Trump is an Einstein.

[By site policy, single letter login-id’s are not permitted. Please logout and correct, before resuming. .mod]

2hotel9
Reply to  R
January 6, 2019 4:22 pm

OH, NO!!!!!!! Flood her stupid a$$ with publicity!!!!!!!! Post vids of her stupid a$$ EVERYWHERE!!!!!! Make her a meme for millennial stupidity to the point millennials ridicule her. Use their weapons against them!!!!!!! What the hell is wrong with people, ALWAYS use the tactics and weapons of your enemies against them. F**king morons.

ShanghaiDan
January 5, 2019 2:06 pm

The top 1% earn 20% of all income – yet pay 40% of all income taxes (and the majority of capital gains taxes, and they almost all max out their Social Security taxes as well). I guess ‘contributing’ twice their share isn’t enough…

Latitude
Reply to  ShanghaiDan
January 5, 2019 2:11 pm

I thought the top paid 75% of all out taxes?

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
January 5, 2019 2:11 pm

…our taxes

RockyRoad
Reply to  Latitude
January 5, 2019 4:08 pm

47% pay no taxes at all. And yet they consume far more than the top 47%!

Dave Fair
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 5, 2019 4:17 pm

47% of U.S. wage earners pay no Federal Income Tax, yet they receive Federal cash payments for items such as Earned Income Tax Credit and other direct cash-back credits, including per-child credits.

Steve Heins
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 5, 2019 4:27 pm

RockyRoad says: “47% pay no taxes at all.”

Rocky forgets about payroll taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, tobacco taxes, liquor taxes and property taxes.

MarkW
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 5, 2019 6:39 pm

Steve Heins believes he has said something relevant.

Steve Heins
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 5, 2019 7:11 pm

MarkW has yet to say anything relevant.

MarkW
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 5, 2019 8:05 pm

As a come back, that was truly pathetic.
Perhaps when you get out of grade school you will be able to do better.

tsk tsk
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 5, 2019 8:08 pm

Steve forgets that tax incidence also shows that the top 1% pay a disproportionate share of excise and payroll taxes as well.

Greg
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 5, 2019 9:42 pm

MarkW:

As a come back, that was truly pathetic.
Perhaps when you get out of grade school you will be able to do better.

It was just echoing your own banal comment and attitude , so I guess you have just evaluated your own comment as “pathetic”.

Well done.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 5, 2019 9:49 pm

47% pay no taxes at all

Even they pay sales tax, duty on fuel (which is added to almost everything indirectly) alcohol and tobacco.

Menicholas
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 5, 2019 11:44 pm

So now we have entered the Peewee Herman phase of the discussion, where “I know you are, but what am I?”, counts as a snappy come back?

MarkW
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 6, 2019 8:40 am

Greg, I see your still trying to convince yourself that you have any knowledge worth sharing.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 6, 2019 12:16 pm

Steve Heins January 5, 2019 at 4:27 pm

RockyRoad says: “47% pay no taxes at all.”

Rocky forgets about payroll taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, tobacco taxes, liquor taxes and property taxes.

Steve Heins, ….. GETTA CLUE, ….. the majority of that “47%” …… works for “cash” money if they work at all, …… don’t own any property so don’t pay property taxes, ….. live in subsidized government housing therefore no rent or utility payments, …….. don’t own a vehicle and don’t buy gasoline, ……. given food stamps, WIC coupons, free medical …… plus a monthly “check” for incidentals (tobacco/liquor, beer/wine), …. free books, supplies and food at public schools, …… paid travel expenses, ……. babysitting expenses, schooling expenses, etc., etc.

“DUH”, those monster crowds of screaming, yelling, terrorizing, destructing, banner waving “protestors” that you see on TV News ……. sure as hell aren’t taking “time off” from their wage earning day job.

John Endicott
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 7, 2019 9:44 am

It was just echoing your own banal comment and attitude, so I guess you have just evaluated your own comment as “pathetic”.

Greg, while grade-school “I know you are but what am I” type comments may be the height of your intellectual capabilities, that doesn’t make them any kind of commentary on the original comment (no matter how banal you might think it is).

John Endicott
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 7, 2019 10:04 am

Even they pay sales tax, duty on fuel (which is added to almost everything indirectly) alcohol and tobacco.

While it should have been more appropriately worded “47% pay no income taxes at all” what you say isn’t strictly accurate either:
1) sales taxes only apply to those states that actually have a sales tax (there is no national sales tax). Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon do not have a state sales tax.
2) indirect taxation doesn’t count (only taxes that an individual directly pay is considered taxation on that individual) and is impossible to track. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist, as technically every company passes on the entirety of their tax bill on to their customers (so not just fuel taxes, but corporate income taxes, any applicable taxes on the raw materials they use, payroll taxes, etc) but there’s no good way to gage just how much of a products price is being used to cover for those taxes and as already noted those taxes aren’t being levied on the customer they’re being levied on the company even if the company is then factoring them into their prices in order to pay them.
3) alcohol and tobacco taxes only apply to those who indulge in those vices. I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to the percentage of the population that is, let along what percentage of that percentage falls within the 47% we are talking about.

so 1 & 3, contrary to what you claim, don’t apply to everyone, and while 2 does apply to everyone it’s not the government that is taxing the individuals, it’s companies passing on their costs to the consumer (same way they do every other cost of doing business).

John Endicott
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 7, 2019 10:23 am

Rocky forgets about payroll taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, tobacco taxes, liquor taxes and property taxes

Let’s be clear here on who we are talking about with the 47%, we are talking those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. As such, they are

1) the least likely to own property (they rent or live in government housing, so no property tax for them),
2) not likely to be working (so no payroll tax) or are the “working poor” (so while they might have a payroll tax, they’re also getting an offsetting Earned Income Tax Credit that is as large or larger than whatever they are paying in payroll taxes).
3) For those that live in the 5 states I mentioned in another post, they are not paying sales taxes, but even for those who are, they’re also likely to be receiving SNAP benefits that exceed what little they pay in sales tax.
4) Gasoline taxes only apply if you have a car – those that live in cities (where many of the lower income can be found) likely don’t even have one.
5) That basically leaves tobacco taxes, liquor taxes, and other “sin” taxes which are easily avoidable by not indulging in the “sin” to which the tax is associated.

So that 47% that doesn’t pay income tax, a good percentage of them are likely paying net zero (if not actually having “negative” taxes – IE the government paying them more than it gets in taxes from them) in taxes once you weigh their government handouts (SNAP, Earned Income, etc) against what taxes they do pay.

Now that’s not to say anyone here is advocating “tax the poor more”, but rather just pointing out that those on the lower end of the income spectrum aren’t paying much if anything in taxes and as such the paying of taxes increases as you get into the higher tax brackets (it’s called a “progressive” tax system)

drednicolson
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 8, 2019 1:11 pm

And of the states with a sales tax, some like Texas exclude certain basic goods like groceries and toiletries. Here in Oklahoma we have what’s colloquially called the “farm tag”, where certain products purchased for use on a registered farm or ranch will have the sales tax waived.

Albert
Reply to  Latitude
January 5, 2019 4:14 pm

It’s complicated, eh? Warren Buffet says his secretary pays a higher % rate than he does. I’m sure he’s right. Yet maybe he pays astronomically more than his secretary in dollar terms.

MarkW
Reply to  Albert
January 5, 2019 6:40 pm

Warren Buffet’s lawyer earns well into 6 figures, so she is already paying at the top marginal tax rate.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Albert
January 5, 2019 6:46 pm

Warren Buffet said his secretary pays a higher INCOME tax rate than he does.
Her income is 6 figures. His worth is great but his actual INCOME is not.
He borrows against his assets. A loan is not considered “income”.

tsk tsk
Reply to  Albert
January 5, 2019 7:59 pm

I’m sure he’s not. It’s been pointed out to him multiple times that he’s wrong, so at this point he’s just straight up lying.

John Endicott
Reply to  Albert
January 7, 2019 10:38 am

Remember, Buffet’s secretary is paid a salary which is taxed as income. Buffett makes nearly all his money from investments – which is taxed differently (ie Capital Gains instead of income, and there are various right-offs for poor investments that can be used to offset the gains in good investments, etc) and so only has a small amount of “income” that is applicable to the income tax, so it’s apples and oranges right there.

Also, his secretary is likely well paid. Forbes estimated that she must earn north of $200k.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/#3e667cb87e83

ShanghaiDan
Reply to  Latitude
January 5, 2019 4:58 pm

Depends upon where you cut off “the top”.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/

The top 10% pay about 70% of all income taxes. If you make more than ~$11,500 per month – you’re in the top 10%, and you’re carrying the bulk of the load.

Thomas Ryan
Reply to  ShanghaiDan
January 5, 2019 5:09 pm

The Federal Government spends over $4 Trillion a year or over $10 Billion a day. If the government could confiscate and convert to cash the net worth of Jeff Bezos, it would pay for government spending for 2 weeks, once. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would fund another 2 weeks, once. AOC is an economic illiterate.

uncle max
Reply to  Thomas Ryan
January 5, 2019 10:56 pm

Bingo. A lot of folks are. They honestly have no idea the math or economics involved.

SAMURAI
Reply to  ShanghaiDan
January 5, 2019 6:48 pm

According to US IRS data, The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 20% pay 87%, and the bottom 50% PAY ZERO%…

Leftists say, “the rich don’t pay their fair share.”… Not so much…

The Immutable Law of Taxes: The more Leftists tax the innovators and job creators, the less innovation and jobs are created..

DMackenzie
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 6, 2019 7:38 pm

“Rich” people get rich by providing goods and services to people who are willing to pay their hard earned dollars to improve their own lives. Usually these are services that the government has no interest in providing. So by over-taxing “rich people” who provide those “in-demand” services and destroying their incentive, actually you are making your entire society less wealthy.

Gary
January 5, 2019 2:07 pm

If ignorance was monetized, AOC would be in the highest tax bracket.

Spuds
January 5, 2019 2:08 pm

I wonder how many of her uber wealthy supporters actually think this is a great idea?? Oopsie!! Ain’t socialism grand? 😁

RHS
Reply to  Spuds
January 5, 2019 2:43 pm

It’s fine while you have other people’s money to spend!

Dr Deanster
Reply to  Spuds
January 5, 2019 3:58 pm

Socialists never propose taxing the highest earners. They only propose “income tax”. For those of us in the know, that means all capital gains, dividends, payed speaking engagements, and those royalties propping up Hollywood’s 6 and 7 figure incomes are exempt.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Dr Deanster
January 5, 2019 7:09 pm

Huh? Royalties and paid speaking engagements (any personal service) are ordinary income. Dividends get a break at the individual level, but they are taxed at the corporate level before they are paid.

26 U.S. Code § 61 – Gross income defined
(a) General definition. Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees …
(2) …
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;

King Soul Brother
Reply to  Spuds
January 5, 2019 4:47 pm

The Uber rich live off of old money which is invested (by someone they married or their inheritance… these asshat socialites never worked a day in their lives)… They wont be taxed on their assests or savings, only the interest, so its unlikely the will be affected by the higher rates. They have the best accountants cooking the books for them…

SAMURAI
Reply to  King Soul Brother
January 5, 2019 9:52 pm

King of Soul-san:

Wrong. Only 15% of the “Uber Rich” inherited their wealth; sorry to burst your Marxist bubble..

Marxism’s penchant for: envy, jealousy, hatred, resentment, covetousness, and anger are truly dangerous and evil, and led to the murder of 100+ million people my Marxist regimes in the 20th century…

Why can’t people learn from history?

MarkW
Reply to  Spuds
January 5, 2019 6:42 pm

The Trump tax bill doubled the personal deduction and increased per child deductions. The liberals are talking about rolling those changes back so that they can have more money to spend on middle class welfare.
The government takes your money so that it can give it back to you. And most of the myrmidons are grateful.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 7:52 pm

As usual Stein has no idea what he is talking about.
Both of your posts agree with me.

Steve Heins
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 8:02 pm

MarkW should read the links before showing how much he’s swallowed the propaganda/misleading talking points.

tsk tsk
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 5, 2019 8:22 pm

Your link didn’t even include the final numbers from the plan, but you’re certain (97% perhaps?) of the actual legislation. If you are interested in an honest take on it, then Riedl is your guy, or you can just spout the narrative.

drednicolson
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 6, 2019 10:22 am

The projection is strong with this one.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Spuds
January 6, 2019 10:44 am

…uber wealthy supporters…”

What you have just discovered is the continued class-warfare that lies under nearly all Liberal policy proposals. For the uber-wealthy, they won’t feel even a 70% marginal income tax rate all that much. They already have their mansions, yachts, sports cars, furs, summer homes, lake homes, island retreats, etc., and even a 70% marginal income tax rate will still leave them plenty to eat and buy the latest fashions and etc. At least part of the motivation for their supporting such confiscatory tax rates is to keep themselves amongst the 1%, and keep any of the climbers and wanna-bes from breaking through and joining them, and cluttering up their posh neighborhoods with McMansions and Chryslers and such trappings of the hoi-polloi. It’s those people in the next 4% below the top 1% who will be most hurt by this kind of a tax. And that is a feature, not a bug.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 6, 2019 11:24 am

…and I should have added, after “…latest fashions…”, I should have said, “…, and they have already hired accountants who will advise them how to avoid or at least reduce the total amount of money they have to pay under the new tax rate.” There, fixed it.

Serge Wright
January 5, 2019 2:13 pm

“It’s going to require a lot of rapid change that we don’t even conceive as possible right now.”

And that’s because it isn’t possible now and won’t be possible ever. Will green left-thinking people ever grow a single bain cell that spurs a logical thought ?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Serge Wright
January 5, 2019 11:08 pm

If they did that, they wouldn’t be the Left now would they?

u.k.(us)
January 5, 2019 2:13 pm

Umm,
Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, has been digging hard into AGW lately.

He could really use some input, he wants it, so lets educate him ?

Menicholas
Reply to  u.k.(us)
January 5, 2019 8:00 pm

Re Scott Adams…
Cannot sit through his videos, and he seems to have discontinued a printed form of his blogging.
Now the only way to hear what he has to say is to sit through long and interminable coffee klatch type powwows, complete with the sip-of-the-day, etc.
I like the guy, but forget it.
If he wants to stay interesting, he needs to at the very least do some editing of the seconds-long dead air between sentences. Maybe something like what Paul Joseph Watson does.
He has gotten lazy.

Long slow video is boring!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Menicholas
January 5, 2019 10:24 pm

Almost all video is boring, unless there is some pertinent visual information to impart such as a demo. I used to read his blog every day. I never watch his videos.

I read way, way faster than people talk. I can refer, copy, store text. Video not so much.

People are becoming illiterate through excessive video use.

Menicholas
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 5, 2019 11:49 pm

Agreed.
His written pieces were interesting.
And could be read in a few minutes.
45-50 minutes of him drinking coffee, wiping his nose, reading, and sniggering to, the comments scrolling past, and talking pretty darn slow when he is talking…um, not so much.
I hope he reads WUWT as a lurker or anonymous commenter and reads this and gets back to giving people, who are his fans, but who do not have the patience to watch a nearly hour long video of him sitting in front of his computer and drinking coffee, what they want.

Derg
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 6, 2019 5:59 am

+100 Zig

January 5, 2019 2:18 pm

Oh my! Pity the poor billionaires forced to pay back some of what they have stolen from us–mostly with the help of huge government subsidies like the TARP bailout. My eyes are red with weeping. Or is it from laughing at the suckers on this site who defend those who are picking their pockets?

MIKE MCHENRY
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 2:25 pm

Keep in mind a rich person to a democrat is anyone with disposable income

Jim G
Reply to  MIKE MCHENRY
January 5, 2019 3:05 pm

First;
I’ll be the first to say that I’m not a Warren Buffet fan, but where do you think his billions are located? One big vault at the bank?

It is tied up in companies, which is also to say people.
He buys a mansion and a yacht?
How many people are employed by that supply chain of raw materials to manufacturers?

What happens when the uber rich stop investing and buying?
Worse yet, what if they go a full John Galt and have zero income for a year?

Sadly, it is the Marxist revolutionaries like AOC who get tired of waiting and start overturning their superiors in the party to make the change happen now.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim G
January 5, 2019 6:45 pm

When Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to (if I remember correctly) 25%, tax revenue collected went up dramatically.

cerescokid
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 10:38 pm

Mark

This is what is missing in this debate, it’s real growth in Adjusted Gross Income. From 1945 to 2000 the Real Growth in Adjusted Gross Income was over 3%. From 2000 to 2016 Real Growth in AGI was ~1%. Real Growth under Reagan and Clinton was far superior to the years since 2000. The bigger the tax base the more taxes are collected. We have an entitlement structure predicated on post war growth of 3% but reality is 1%. Regardless of the top marginal tax rate if Income and thus the tax base, the spending will continue to outgrow the tax revenue.
The big Democratic myth is that Clinton balanced the budget by increasing the top marginal tax rate. No, he balanced the budget because of sustained growth in the Real Adjusted Gross Income, which at times exceeded 5-6%.
All tax revenue increased by $925 Billion under Clinton. Of that $200 Billion was SS Tax Revenue, $100 Billion Corporate Taxes, $100 Billion Misc Taxes, $100 Capital Gains and $100 Billion from the increase in Marginal Tax Rates. The rest was RealGrowth in Adjusted Gross
Income.
Some more perspective on how our economy stopped growing in 2000. From 1948 not a single year did the AGI drop below a previous year. Not one. Since 2000 there were 9 years up to 2016 where the AGI was below a previous year.

If the economy doesn’t start growing faster than 1% Real Growth it doesn’t matter what economic illiterates like the nitwit AOC want to do with the top marginal rate, the tax base can’t support the soon to be $5 Trillion budget.

Sobaken
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 2:25 pm

That taxed money will go right back into the pockets of wind farm tycoons and car company CEOs through the same subsidies and bailouts.
So nothing will change, except that there’ll be constant blackouts on windless days, and the cars won’t be able to take you between cities without a ten hour recharge. Or more likely, there’ll be a revolt against those policies far before it gets to that.

Reply to  Sobaken
January 5, 2019 2:35 pm

If you tax the wealth (not income) of the richest 1% at a rate of 5% per annum (about what many ordinary folk pay on their houses) you generate over half a trillion per year– a tidy sum. If your green energy source is fusion, you will be paying less for energy. AOC’s green energy plan includes lots of new housing, hospitals and other infrastructure the US badly needs. Her one mistake is think the Democrats will back it. A new party is needed for that.

Sobaken
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 2:55 pm

Cortez is anti nuclear and insists on 100% renewables, meaning wind and solar.
Also, we don’t have fusion, or technologies to replace all fossil energy in steel, cement and plastic production, other industrial processes, transportation, agriculture, etc with electricity and heat from a source like fusion.
And she isn’t proposing to invest in energy research, unless that was what she meant by green jobs.

Mike H
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 3:06 pm

And that tax will be a declining number and will never achieve the predicted amounts of revenue.

Jim G
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 3:36 pm

So you are suggesting that they must sell the companies an other assets that their wealth resides?

You are aware that the wealth isn’t a bunch of gold bars in a vault.
Although they may very well indeed have a bunch of gold bars in a vault.

If their assets are all sold off for the govt, thousands would lose their jobs.

If AOC and her ilk can’t get what they want through legislation, the Marxists of the past have always resorted to just taking it by force.

Spuds
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 4:16 pm

How about the many trust fund babies out there that have billions but generate no or little income? Many come from influential families that squash her like a bug.
Also you still need conventional energy and technology to build so called “green” energy generation facilities.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 6:47 pm

Eric, you are assuming that the rich won’t do anything to reduce their tax exposure.
Beyond that, envy is evil, desiring to steal from others just because they have more than you do will rot what little is left of your black little heart.

Menicholas
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 6, 2019 12:09 am

Eric Lerner,
how old are you?
15, or 16?
Tax wealth?
Every year?
5%?
Hahahaha…you must be crazy.
The wealth of those rich people whose tidy sum you want to want to get your greedy little paws on is almost 100% in such things as stocks and real estate holdings, and how do you take 5% of someone’s real estate every year?
Do you have any knowledge of financial markets, and what would happen to the price of stocks if people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, etc, were forced to sell 5% of their stock every year? For these people, nearly all of their wealth is in the stock of their companies, and is not part of the actively traded “float”. For them to sell 5% of it would crash the stock price. But they would not do it…they would leave the country rather than pay billions per year in a wealth tax so you and your ilk could spend their “tidy sum(s)” on giveaways for the indolent do-nothings who sit around fantasizing about how they would like to spend the money of the people who create wealth and jobs and profitable enterprises.

Fusion?
When did she say anything about fusion?
Newsflash to Eric…there is no such thing as fusion power, it is at least decades off, and may in fact never, ever, be a reality.
She is advocating for the most expensive power sources we know how to create, and they are intermittent and completely unsuitable for base load power, so must be 100% backed up by fossil fuel generation on permanent standby.
Do you ever read anything factual?

John Endicott
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 7, 2019 11:28 am

If you tax the wealth (not income) of the richest 1% at a rate of 5% per annum (about what many ordinary folk pay on their houses) you generate over half a trillion per year– a tidy sum

spoken like someone who has no clue about economics or human nature. Where exactly do you think the richest 1% keep their wealth? It’s not in their mattress or even in a bank account just waiting to be withdrawn. It’s invested in companies, real estate, and other investments. As others pointed out, forcing them to withdraw their investments will destroy companies (putting people out of work) & tank stock prices (meaning your “tidy sum” rapidly shrinks as the value of their wealth rapidly drops alongside the stock prices. But it’s not that bad (for the wealthy, even worse for the government that tries your disastrous idea) , the wealthy will just up stakes and move out of the country the second your tax is passed (they’ll have started preparations for the move the second it’s proposed) so as to avoid the tax, ooops there goes your “tidy sum” out the door. Now, not only don’t you have their wealth to tax, you also aren’t getting their income tax that you previously did thus causing government revenues to dramatically decrease. Only you still have the same government expenditures to support meaning you either have to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes (who can’t just move as easily as the wealthy can) to make up for it or increase the debt substantially or else cut spending greatly.

John Endicott
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 7, 2019 11:35 am

If your green energy source is fusion, you will be paying less for energy.

AOC is not advocating for fusion. Nuclear of any kind is verboten and not considered green where she is concerned. What she does advocate in the way of green energy is wind and solar. the worst forms of energy generation (as far as efficiency and reliability is concerned).

AOC’s green energy plan includes lots of new housing, hospitals and other infrastructure the US badly needs.

Then propose an infrastructure bill. She could get Trump on board (he advocated for infrastructure spending on the campaign trail) as well as a number of other Republicans along side the Dems. It could be an opportunity for bi-partisanship. But not if you tie it to green nonsense.

HotScot
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 2:28 pm

Eric Lerner

Which would mean, you as a lefty, don’t condone government subsidies.

Welcome to the right wing.

David Wells
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 2:37 pm

Microsoft employs 131,000 people, UK auto 600,000 people, British Airways 60,000, Apple directly employs 115,000 and indirectly 627,000 Amazon employs 566,000 worldwide.

Your contribution is?

Its a free world unless 1984 becomes a reality because of the boneheaded ramblings of knuckleheads like Cortez. No one insists you buy Beyonce records or Taylor Swifts attempts at vocality. So seeing as your money can stay in your pocket until you choose to spend I am at a loss to understand the relevence of your comment. Please enlighten me?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 2:50 pm

The middle class pays all taxes, Eric; whether directly or through increased costs of goods and services.

Jim G
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 5, 2019 4:35 pm

Technically that is incorrect unless they are self employed.

The middle class are more likely to be employed by a corporation that provides income above their take home pay to cover taxes. The customer who buys product either generated that wealth through transformation of materials (business owner) or was employed by another.

Ultimately, it is the business owner that actually pays the taxes.
It is only the business owner who must pay their employees extra so they can pay income taxes.
All money one earns is derived from the success of a business owner.

The same is true for State/Federal employees.
If they were exempted from income taxes they would not see a difference in pay and there would be no change to State/Federal revenue. Gov’t employees paying income taxes does allow the Gov’t to increase taxes that they ultimately give back to themselves. Pretty clever in my opinion.

Without the sixteenth amendment, the Federal Government would not be able to collect income taxes.

By the way, I am not a business owner, but have served as a manufacturing engineer for many years now.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Jim G
January 5, 2019 5:34 pm

Actually, it is the customers that pay the taxes, through higher prices. As for government employees paying taxes, everyone should pay some tax. If you vote, you should pay taxes. All of a sudden a vote for a spend-and-tax-and-spend D takes some thought, doesn’t it!

MatthewDRobnick
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 5, 2019 6:31 pm

Interesting you use the term “should”. I’m interested why you think anyone “should” have the product of their labor stolen from them.

Tax is theft. It can be nothing else, as it is not voluntary. If it was voluntary, it would not be tax. Tax takes from makers, via violence (illegitimate initiation of force), then redistributes it to benefit mostly the takers and to some degree us makers. It matters not how much, if any, good you do with stolen money, it remains stolen money that was confiscated through violence or coercion.

Anyone who is not in possession of 100% of the product of their labor is by definition, a slave. Whether there are varying degrees of slavery is irrelevant. You either own yourself (and by extension the production of your thoughts, emotions, actions, words) or someone else lays claim to said production. It is a zero-sum game. It is either/or. Anything that lies in between the extremes necessitates slavery.

You can dress it up and make all the justifications, excuses, and mental gymnastics you need to comfort yourself, but those terms are correct and there is no other explanation that is an accurate appraisal of taxation.

So in light of reality, why do you believe it is acceptable to steal from your fellow citizen to provide for services that benefit you and others, or to provide for things that you think are in the best interest of everyone?

MatthewDrobnick
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 5, 2019 6:43 pm

I think I misused zero-sum. whatever. It is either or.

also, for those who think our nation wouldn’t exist because no one would pay, look at the gofundme for the wall, or Christian services that feed the poor, or any other of the myriad of ways people spend their excess money when they care about something.

People spend their money on what they care about. Think about how much money would be available to spend on Defense rather than offense, if the government wasn’t giving away our stolen money to foreign nations, the UN, etc..

But, after 100 or so years of state indoctrination via stolen property tax money, even the most staunch conservatives seem to think taxation is acceptable. Imagine that.

MarkW
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 5, 2019 6:51 pm

Matthew, as long as there is government, there are going to be taxes. Unless you are advocating anarchy, taxes will always be a fact of life.
As long as there have to be taxes they should be as broad based as possible. Demanding that one subsection of society bear all the cost of government is just another form of slavery.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 6, 2019 9:06 am

@MatthewDRobnick January 5, 2019 at 6:31 pm

I agree with you, taxation is always coercive. I couldn’t make it all the way through the rest of your boring manifesto, but I will tell you this. I would be an anarchist if I thought everyone would/could behave, I know I can 😉 , but not everyone will so there must be some government, and that government must be compensated in some way, so therefore there must also be taxes. Always. I’m merely pointing out that there must be some feedback mechanism. A person who pays no taxes to any representative government will find it very easy to vote for representation who promises to confiscate 100% of the income of everyone who pays taxes. Easy choice. I include even the welfare queens(kings) who have always leeched off the government yet are still allowed to vote (I like the idea that a citizen must be a property-holder to vote, that used to be in the Constitution, what happened to it?), if there is a tax increase even they should see a result in their own spending power, no matter where that money comes from.

Jim G
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 6, 2019 9:50 am

@Red.
Do the customers actually pay the taxes?
Imagine if a state employee comes and buys one of my widgets.
Where did the money come from for that purchase?
They did not generate that wealth, it came from someone else.

All wealth begins with the transformation of materials. Be it animal vegetable or mineral. Business owners transform those materials until you get the final product.

This is why a negative trade imbalance is so harmful.
The wealth generated is spent in another country, not at home to support local citizens.

Remittances from foreign guest workers has the same result.
Money is removed from the local economy and the velocity of money decreases.

This is what makes it so curious why our politicians hate tariffs so much.
Unfortunately because we have had so low tariffs for so long, raising them any amount will create pain.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 6, 2019 11:43 am

@Jim G January 6, 2019 at 9:50 am

Yes, the customer always pays the taxes, in higher prices, it doesn’t matter where their money comes from, that’s the wrong side of the ledger anyway. That’s why I said every voter should pay taxes, it doesn’t matter where their money comes from, so that a tax increase/decrease will cause a proportional decrease/increase in their buying power… they can get the LTE with the bun-warmers car if the tax declines, or they have to stick with the LE model instead with manually adjusting mirrors if the tax increases. There should be some consequences of their vote, in other words.

The company that makes the widgit will have to show some profit or they won’t stay in business, and that profit will have to meet some minimum threshold to convince investors that is the place to invest, otherwise they can take their money and go elsewhere. Pretty much the company HAS to pass that cost (increased taxes) on to their customers, or else the company goes broke and closes its doors and you the consumer cannot buy that widgit anymore, at least not from that manufacturer.

I’m not sure where that stuff about tariffs and foreign guest workers came from, neither has anything to do with who pays the tax.

Menicholas
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 6, 2019 11:55 am

Another way to look at the trade imbalance is…they send us stuff, we send them paper.

MarkW
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 6, 2019 2:24 pm

Dollars that are sent overseas have to come back to the US, because the US is the only country that accepts greenbacks as legal currency.

Richard molineux
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 6, 2019 2:54 pm

[snip – Mr. Keating, STOP IT – final warning -Anthony]

John Endicott
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 7, 2019 11:49 am

Jim G, the customer always pays the taxes, in higher prices.

you are flat out wrong when you said “They did not generate that wealth, it came from someone else.” There is no wealth without work/labor being used to generate it.

All wealth begins with the transformation of materials.

And that transformation of materials does not happen without the application of labor. so the answer to your question “Where did the money come from for that purchase?” is “the customer’s work/labor was compensated for with this stuff we call money”, so ultimately it’s the customer’s work/labor that is paying the higher prices that are the result of taxation.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 6:08 pm

neither Gates, Jobs or Buffet ever stole a dime from you … don’t be an idiot … you sound like AOC …

drednicolson
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
January 6, 2019 11:28 am

I’d have all the money in the world, if it wasn’t for those meddling Other People stealing it all!

Grant
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 6:19 pm

Who would you rather spend Bill Gates money. Him or the Government?

MarkW
Reply to  Grant
January 5, 2019 6:52 pm

Bill Clinton once gave a speech in which he stated that he wanted to give the people a tax cut, but that he was afraid the people wouldn’t spend the money responsibly and that would hurt the economy.
Most liberals are convinced that government can do everything better than the average man could.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 6:44 pm

Class hatred is strong in the economic illiterates.

tsk tsk
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 5, 2019 8:24 pm

So does that also include the UAW that was bailed out as part of the GM bankruptcy? Let me guess, that’s different because reasons.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 6, 2019 10:30 am

For those who have made, and continue to make, $billions solely from government handouts, subsidies, bailouts, etc., may the fleas of a thousand camels infest their armpits. At the same time, if it’s available and somebody is gonna get it, and they have the ability/capability of scooping it up (legally), they’d be foolish not to, wouldn’t they? For that matter, why didn’t you? If you lack the ambition to pick up a quarter off the sidewalk, don’t be hatin’ on the person who did.

While there are Bernie Madoffs in the world they are a minority even of the wealthy. You may hate Bill Gates, and have thousands of logical reasons why you should and I can’t refute a one of them, but he did build a company that has delivered a product, and continues to deliver a product. Why didn’t you? Likewise with Jeff Bezos, he saw the opportunity in direct-sales, and built an amazing delivery system and a phenomenal website to take in the orders, so he built it, you didn’t. Why didn’t you? Want me to go on?

John Endicott
Reply to  Eric Lerner
January 7, 2019 11:56 am

Oh my! Pity the poor billionaires forced to pay back some of what they have stolen from us

No, they didn’t steal it from us. They came up with products and services that we eagerly bought. They also employed us, giving us money in exchange for our labor making it easier to buy those products and services (back in the old days you’d have to trade a chicken a few pigs to get a new wagon or plow, lots easier to trade a few scraps of paper with presidents portraits on them). Well I say “employed us” but I have my doubts that you’ve ever been employed based on the naïve socialist nonsense that you post.

Kurt in Switzerland
January 5, 2019 2:20 pm

Great plan. Can’t wait to see endorsements from Soros & Steyer, not to mention Bloomberg.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
January 5, 2019 2:42 pm

Oh these guys are prog philanthropists, buying elections is tax deductible. I’ve hoped to no avail that Trump would shut down this political machinery as not charitable as defined. He may yet do. Bloomberg, Soros, Steyer, Rockefeller Brothers and a bunch more owe the government a few 100B in taxes tgat should not have been foregone with their lawless dodges and traitorous subversion of the US gov. Hillary should cough up 75% of her family enrichment activities billed as a charity.

matthewdrobnick
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 5, 2019 4:48 pm

Gary, you may enjoy this particular podcast. Brett does fantastic research.

The entire series is great but this one focuses on the Rockefeller/Carnegie/Rhodes overthrow of the school system, from trivium based to memorization.

https://schoolsucksproject.com/226-how-the-truth-becomes-illegal-part-2-barometer/

JR
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 5, 2019 5:22 pm

Political contributions are not tax deductible.

Gordon Dressler
January 5, 2019 2:20 pm

She is not old enough to know better.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
January 5, 2019 6:53 pm

I’ve proposed increasing the age requirements for federal elective office to 35 for the House, 45 for the Senate and 65 for the President.

Steve Heins
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 7:00 pm

That is really dumb MarkW. You can enlist/get drafted at 18 and die in combat right? Most 16 year olds with any kind of job pay taxes right?

Menicholas
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 5, 2019 9:32 pm

No one can get drafted, since there has not been a draft in the US since 1973, which according to some calculations was something like a very long time ago.

BobM
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 6, 2019 7:18 am

You can enlist, but not get drafted at 18. At 18 you have to enroll. During the Viet Nam War, those whose draft status was 1A and aged 18 1/2 to 25 would be drafted oldest first until that Draft Board’s quota was filled. Very few 18 year olds were drafted, if any.

Since the implementation of the Draft Lottery and elimination of most deferrals, you would be eligible for the draft at age 20 or the first year after your deferral ended (usually the current semester of college, or senior year). Each succeeding year your chances of being drafted decline. I still remember my draft lottery number.

Steve Heins
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 7:02 pm

Sounds to me like MarkW is afraid Ocasio-Cortez could defeat Donald in 2020.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 5, 2019 8:09 pm

Tell me, are you this clueless in real life?
First off, she can’t run in 2020, she’s too young. Perhaps that’s why you are so upset about the age limitations of the constitution, it’s preventing your idol from running for president.
If you think she could win, you are even more delusional than your posts make you seem. She can win in NYC, that’s it. I would love to see her run for higher office. The more people see her the more she hurts the Democrats.

hunter
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 6, 2019 9:44 am

Any socialist running in 2020 will be massively defeated unless the ballot counting is corrupted.

John Endicott
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 7, 2019 12:06 pm

Sounds to me like MarkW is afraid Ocasio-Cortez could defeat Donald in 2020.

Sounds to me like Steve Heins is clueless about what the US constitution says about the age of elective office holders. Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States thusly:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

AOC won’t be 35 until 2024. She is ineligible to run for President in 2020. So even if she was to run for president once she’s eligible, she wouldn’t be running against Trump (who would either be finishing his second term and thus would no longer be eligible to run again, or would have been out of office for 4 years and, at age 78, would unlikely be considering another run).

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 7:54 pm

As usual, Steve substitutes hatred for thinking.
Are you actually arguing that anyone who pays taxes should be able to run for president?
Or are you just lashing out because your shortcomings have been exposed for all to see, again.

Steve Heins
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 8:15 pm

If MarkW had his way, and made it a requirement that one must be 65 to be president, then George Washintington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Quicy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William H. Harrison, John Tyler, James Polk, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Abe Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, William Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calin Cooledge, Herbert Hover, Franklin D Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Bush the father, Bush the son, and Barack Obama would not qualify to hold office.

Funny thing is both Trump and Reagan would be disqualified.

Steve Heins
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 5, 2019 8:25 pm

Ooops…. that last line should read: “Funny thing is both Trump and Reagan would be qualified”

Menicholas
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 5, 2019 9:29 pm

So some want the age limits reduced or eliminated, and some want them increased.
That is the starting point in the negotiations.
As a middle ground, and since there is no chance that a constitutional amendment would be voted on and ratified to do either of these, I suggest we compromise and keep it like it is and drop the subject.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 6, 2019 8:46 am

I’m guessing that SteveH isn’t bright enough to notice what has happened to life expectancy over the last 200 years.
Then again, SteveH isn’t bright enough to notice when he’s in a hole.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 6, 2019 8:47 am

SteveH, Reagan was easily the greatest president of the last century, and Trump while imperfect, is head and shoulders above most of his recent successors.

RLu
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2019 3:32 am

MarkW
A maximum age limit of 65 would be better. All those dinosaurs at the top of the parties disgust me.
They are no longer doing what is best for the people. They are only trying to keep their nemesis’ from scoring points, by all means necessary! And they will not live to see the (un)intended consequences of their actions.

MarkW
Reply to  RLu
January 6, 2019 8:48 am

RLu, the problem is that they have been in politics since they graduated from college.
A higher minimum age would require most of them to spend some time in the real world prior to entering politics.

RLu
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2019 12:54 pm

That is also a good argument for term-limits. 8 years and go back to doing something useful.
But the blighters will never vote to put themselves out of a job.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2019 3:41 pm

The two combined would be pretty close to perfect.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2019 12:15 pm

I’ve proposed increasing the age requirements for federal elective office to 35 for the House, 45 for the Senate and 65 for the President.

The current bracket is 25 house, 30 Senate, 35 President. At 25, you can have spent young entire life in school and never spent a day earning a living in a real job, paying rent/mortgage, and putting food on your table for the efforts of your labor. So while I don’t know about your stated age brackets, I do agree that our elected officials do need some real world experience under their belts before running for office. I think I’d bump those up to be 30, 35 senate and 40 president. old enough to have some experience but no so old as to not give a damn.

dmacleo
January 5, 2019 2:24 pm

and her plan only affects about 1100 or so people in US so would not fund anything really. suddenly that 10M figure would drop to 1M then to 500K just to try to pay for everything she wants to give away.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-many-people-make-more-than-50-million-per-year-in-wages-2018-10-18

MarkW
Reply to  dmacleo
January 5, 2019 6:54 pm

The original income tax was set at 3% and only affected about 100 people, mostly in NY and CA.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  dmacleo
January 6, 2019 11:09 am

I have not clicked on your link, but I notice the title includes “…In Wages…” There are many types of income other than wages, particularly for someone who is wealthy. I think I heard somewhere that Bill Gates has effectively “retired” and thus his wages become $0, he would not appear on that list (if it’s true that he retired from Microsoft), yet his income last year, just off the return on his investments, was undoubtedly huge! Can you find a list of total income? Most likely not, returns on many investments, for example an ownership in a privately held company, are not public information.

Chris Hanley
January 5, 2019 2:25 pm

“Once you get to, like, the tippy tops …”.
=============================================
Does she think two-year-olds vote or is she assuming it is typical mental age of her constituency?

icisil
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 5, 2019 3:09 pm

The moment is using her. There’s nothing upstairs. She’s eye candy.

Spuds
Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2019 4:19 pm

If it’s a “movemen” then the term “bowel” should become before it… Truth in advertising.

matthewdrobnick
Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2019 4:52 pm

icisil January 5, 2019 at 3:09 pm
“The moment is using her. There’s nothing upstairs. She’s eye candy.”

I beg to differ about EYE candy. There is certainly something about those eyes- pure insanity. I want to puke. If I had the opportunity and was single, I’d still pass. And trust me, I’m a total pig. She also looks like skeletor with that jaw line

Reply to  matthewdrobnick
January 5, 2019 7:29 pm

She’s cute enough, but I prefer women with a brain.

Ralph Dave Westfall
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 5, 2019 7:38 pm

Co2isnotevil, you must be one of the guys that likes to stick his dick in between a girl’s ears.

michael hart
Reply to  matthewdrobnick
January 5, 2019 9:11 pm

Give him his due, Skeletor has been doing some adverts recently for Money SuperMarket.
They’re totally epic.
E.g.

icisil
Reply to  matthewdrobnick
January 5, 2019 11:56 pm

comment image?itemid=9442860

John Endicott
Reply to  icisil
January 7, 2019 12:21 pm

The moment is using her. There’s nothing upstairs. She’s eye crazy.

fixed that for you 🙂

Tom Judd
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 5, 2019 6:09 pm

Is there a difference between “tippy tops” and ‘tippy toes’?

Now I’m going to tickle you if you don’t cover up, Ocasio. I’ll tuck you in. And, I’ll keep the boogeyman away. He can’t walk on his tippy toes. He almost makes as much noise as you.

Pft
January 5, 2019 2:35 pm

In the golden years of capitalism the max income tax rate was 90%. Nobody wanted income, they wanted capital gains so kept money in their company and expanded in the US. No point in huge CEO bonuses that would be taxed 90% , but might as well pay workers a decent wage to keep them happy and productive rather than pay a higher corporate tax by squeezing them

Before his death JFK was looking to tax capital outflows to keep jobs in the US in exchange for a lower income tax rate. After his death only the income tax rate dropped and capital could still be exported with jobs at no cost

Now corporate managers can fleece the company and shareholders (esp those registered in Deleware where most have a PO box head office ) with sky high salaries and bonuses. They can move production outside the US to pay workers less and only pay an 11% corporate tax (half what they pay in US) and not even that if they pay an equivalent amount of tax to the host country (meaning they pay 0 US tax)

Now I dont buy into a green economy but this neoliberal experiment is working only for the 1 percent and those countries who receive the 1% ers tax savings in investments into their own economy

RHS
Reply to  Pft
January 5, 2019 2:47 pm

The 90% or so tax rate began in WWII under FDR. IIRC, it was applied to the top 5 – 10% of wage earners. Granted, there was a real problem being addressed right the Axis powers and helping real allies.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Pft
January 5, 2019 4:55 pm

Mickey Mantle, the New York Yankee great, was the first $100,000 baseball player. He was in the 90% bracket so only realized $10,000. How horrible was that.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 5, 2019 5:50 pm

“He was in the 90% bracket so only realized $10,000. ”

I don’t think it worked like that. The 90% rate was only applied to the upper tranches or slices of one’s income, not to all of it.

Menicholas
Reply to  Roger Knights
January 5, 2019 9:34 pm

Exactly right.
Those are marginal tax rates.

JR
Reply to  Pft
January 5, 2019 5:07 pm

So what if they pay only 11%? That money is reinvested in their companies and generates economic growth. It’s not like they are Scrooge McDuck swimming in swimming pools of gold.

MarkW
Reply to  JR
January 5, 2019 6:58 pm

You’d be amazed how many leftists actually believe that Scrooge McDuck is a documentary.

Menicholas
Reply to  JR
January 6, 2019 12:18 am

LOL…I know…seriously.
Everyone knows gold is too dense to swim in…it would break your hands if you even try.
they sunbath while lying on top of it.
Duh!

MarkW
Reply to  Pft
January 5, 2019 6:57 pm

With all of the deductions available at the time, the only people who paid 90% were those who’s accountants made a mistake.

BTW, I just love it when economic know nothings declare that other people are being over paid. As if they know anything about how to run a business.
It’s just your classic class hatred towards anyone who dares to be more successful than they are.

HotScot
January 5, 2019 2:43 pm

We tried 98% tax in the UK around the 1960’s.

It bombed. Commonly referred to as the brain drain where everyone with an ounce of intelligence and earning potential fled the country.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Fortunately people of my vintage have that gift because we have seen all this before.

socialism doesn’t work. No if’s, but’s or however’s, it simply doesn’t work. Not in developing countries, not in developed countries. It’s a failure wherever it has been tried and it only takes a little hindsight to understand that.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  HotScot
January 6, 2019 12:03 am

“If five percent appears too small, be thankful I don’t take all, ’cause I’m the taxman”
Taxman – The Beatles
The problem with taxing the rich is that their investments are what provide jobs – they can live anywhere – tax them too heavily and they up stakes, typically relocating their investments to where they can better keep and eye on them or generate a better return.
The laws of economics are as inexorable as physics – but socialists continue to believe they can defy economic gravity.
Britain practically went broke with that socialist experiment.

Menicholas
Reply to  Ken Irwin
January 6, 2019 12:27 am

Practically?
Look where they are now.
It seems to me they have never recovered, and that period was a particularly steep part of the slide down from where they were to where they are.

Zig Zag Wanderer
January 5, 2019 2:51 pm

Cos that had worked so well in the past…

Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all,
Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat,
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman.

This was in response to a 95% top bracket tax in the UK.

Did mega-earners like the beatles, rolling stones, sean connery pay up or leave the UK? Most just left.

In reality, most nega-earners can afford accountants to prevent taxes anyway. This would hit the nearly rich and make them not bother, or leave the country.

Menicholas
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 6, 2019 1:16 am

The Beatles, after being the most popular group of musicians in the history of the world, were so broke that they never even were able or willing to buy back the rights to their own music catalog, which they had signed away early in their career.
And in 1985 Michael Jackson bought the entire Beatles catalogue, and thousands of others totaling more than 4000 songs, for 47.5 million dollars.
In a few short years he licensed songs such as Revolution (to Nike for $500,000 and not an exclusive license either) for millions of dollars, and ten years later Sony paid Jackson $95,000,000 for a 50% stake in that 4000 song catalogue (which did not include any of Jackson’s own songs), plus gave him a 50% interest in the entire Sony music catalogue! By 2005 that catalogue, which Jackson owed half of, after getting paid back twice his original investment, not counting all the millions he had already made from licensing deals on Beatles songs alone, was an astounding 200,000 songs! By 2012, the ANNUAL income from those songs was over $1,250,000,000! Just from licensing and royalties…and they still owned the songs!
The entire shebang that Jackson had parlayed for, while earning gigantic profits on his original investment totaling many hundreds of percent in returns, is by some estimates worth over $5 billion and that was 5 years ago. With a net income exceeding well over half a billion per year, that seems very much like a crazy low estimate. Who would sell property, grossing 1.25 billion/year, for 5 billion?

That is what high taxes does to people, makes them so broke they have nothing to invest, and so other people who do have money to invest, do so, and make huge profits, which BTW wind up providing far more tax dollars in the end.
None of those taxes went to the UK BTW…except for the amounts that Paul got and paid taxes on, assuming he still lives in the UK (Paul and Lennon’s estate got 25% each, Jackson 50%).
That catalogue created gigantic wealth and generated huge tax revenue for the US though.
Maybe just as well…the dumb asses like Paul McCartney would never have stooped so low as to license their songs for mere money.
In balance, it must be noted they were perhaps the least savvy business people ever born.
Paul and Yoko were several times and on separate occasions given first right of refusal to the catalogue before Jackson snapped it up. Either of them could have had it for 40 million or less, even as little as a year before Jackson wound up getting the catalogue.
But that did not stop Paul from going ape-shit with rage when the person who did buy the songs, licensed them to make some money on them. And whining about could he please just get back the rights to some ones he really wanted.
Finally, although he owned 100% of the rights to his own songs and 50% of the Sony catalogue of 200,000 songs which included nearly the entire Beatles catalogue and all of their big hits, Jackson was such an incredible waster of money he died with over 500 million in debts on loans he had taken out using the catalogue as collateral. But after he died in 2009, the people managing his estate paid off those debts and by 2014 had brought in an additional $600 million in revenue. So his estate continues to be worth billions, and much (most?) of it is due to his savvy purchase, and subsequent licensing, of the Beatles catalogue which to get it he also bought those other 3500 plus songs.
And as a final bit, one might wonder how it came to be that Jackson was so clued in to the profits to be gained by buying rights to songs? Simples…a few years previous to his purchase:
“In 1982, while recording the song “Say, Say, Say” together in London, Michael briefly lived with Paul and Linda McCartney. After dinner one night, Paul retrieved a thick leather book from a shelf. The book, Paul explained, listed every song right that he had purchased in the previous decade. As if that wasn’t impressive enough, Paul bragged that in the last year alone, he had made over $40 million in royalties ($96 million in 2013 dollars) from his song rights. When Paul was done speaking, Michael looked at him and said: “Some day I’m gonna own your songs.” Paul laughed, and responded: “Great, good joke!”

January 5, 2019 2:51 pm

The best argument against socialism is that it has been tried.

RHS
January 5, 2019 2:51 pm

It is better to live in a society where the bread waits on you, hence no food lines. Rather than you wait on the bread, hence Venezuela and the former USSR.

commieBob
Reply to  RHS
January 5, 2019 4:52 pm

For some reason, that puts me in mind of Bizarro World where doing something correctly is a capital offense.

Jim G
Reply to  RHS
January 6, 2019 10:07 am

I met a man who had recently moved to the US from Romania.
This was around the mid 90’s.
He shared that he went to the grocery store and was stunned by the displays of butter.
He spent about 10-15 minutes just staring because there were so many choices.

In Romania, you simply had butter.
No difficult choices.

commieBob
January 5, 2019 2:51 pm

It could be that The Donald has cleverly forced the Democrats into taking more leftist positions that will be very unpopular in Middle America. link I know it won’t happen but I hope OC will run for President. LOL

If they aren’t really clever, the Democrat party could be in for a long time in the political wilderness. They threw working Americans under the bus and I’m feeling vengeful.

Steven Lohr
Reply to  commieBob
January 5, 2019 3:15 pm

Oh yes, she is obviously Democratic Presidential Candidate material, please, please, run this train wreck!!! The debates would be priceless. So hey Democrats, pedal to the metal, lets make this dumpster fire hot!!

Earthling2
Reply to  commieBob
January 5, 2019 5:47 pm

Don’t you have to be 35 or 40 to hold the title of POTUS? She is 29 or maybe 30 now, very immature and kinda wet behind the ears to even be in Congress. Another Climate Barby in the making. But she is a good dancer.

MarkW
Reply to  Earthling2
January 5, 2019 7:03 pm

25 House
30 Senate
35 President

Menicholas
Reply to  Earthling2
January 6, 2019 1:26 am

I do not know about good dancer. Compared to most guys…yeah, that she is.
Compared to other young women?
Nope, not even decent.
She did, at least in those days, have a great pair of…um…feet.
Yeah, feet.
And an interestingly large mouth.
But those Mr Ed sized choppers are rather worrisome…

John Endicott
Reply to  Earthling2
January 7, 2019 12:31 pm

You must be 35, she won’t be until 2024, so it’ll be a wait before she can run.

JimH in CA
Reply to  commieBob
January 5, 2019 5:58 pm

OC can run for Pres, maybe in 6 years….when she’s 35, if she gets re-elected.

MarkW
Reply to  JimH in CA
January 5, 2019 7:00 pm

Given her district, getting re-elected is a given. Especially if she keeps talking about seizing other people’s money so it can be spent on her constituents.

Menicholas
Reply to  JimH in CA
January 5, 2019 10:47 pm

Of the people elected President of the US, only James Garfield in 1880 was elected having only being a member of the House of Representatives as prior experience.
17 were previously governors, 16 were senators, 14 were vice presidents, 8 were holding no office for at least a year when elected, 8 had been cabinet secretaries, and 5 had never been elected to any public office before being elected President (Zachary Taylor, 1848, career military man, major general, war hero; U.S. Grant, who was elected because his initials were US :-); Herbert Hoover, an engineer and businessman,who had been Sec of Commerce; Dwight Eisenhower, who was elected because it was anticipated he would give the best and yet least heeded farewell address in history…and Donald J. Trump).
I would give Ocrazio Cortez, and being very generous here, zero percent chance of being elected President in 6 years. Mainly because the electorate of the US is not, collectively speaking, a pack of silly jackasses.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
January 5, 2019 11:32 pm

BTW Garfield was a major general who served with Union army and fought in the historic battles at Middle Creek, Shiloh, and Chickamauga.
He was a war hero.
He had been elected to the Ohio state senate, and held several leadership positions in the US H. of R. including Chairing of the Financial Services committee, Appropriations committee, Military Affairs committee, and he served as his parties leader in the House.
And he was also an ordained minister.
Although it must be said that Ocrazio Cortez, despite seemingly being an economic illiterate, does have a business degree, and put it to work during a grueling run as a bartender immediately before running for office.

RHS
January 5, 2019 2:56 pm

I think she is confusing earnings versus wealth.
I’ll pick on Jeff Bezos as an example. Through stock Grant’s, investments, and other means, he is worth a lot of money. However, until he sells his stocks and other investments, he hasn’t made nearly as much money. Taxing on earnings and income is how the government gets money from us, not on our value.

sonofametman
Reply to  RHS
January 5, 2019 3:41 pm

It’s a different story in Spain, where there’s the ‘patrimonio’, a wealth tax.
There are hefty allowances, so a single person wouldn’t pay until their assets reach about a million euros. But the rate goes up steadily to 2.5% on taxable wealth over 10.6 m euros.
Not nice at all.

Menicholas
Reply to  sonofametman
January 6, 2019 1:47 am

That must be why Spain is such a hotbed of wealth creation, and has so many rich people sticking around and creating jobs and additional wealth with their money.

n.n
January 5, 2019 2:58 pm

Redistributive change.

markl
January 5, 2019 3:02 pm

Climate Change meet Socialism. Best friends for life, albeit a short one. This kind of talk should put both to bed quickly.

2hotel9
January 5, 2019 3:04 pm

Occasional-Cortex demands all manner of things which Occasional-Cortex does not have the faintest idea what those things entail.

Wharfplank
January 5, 2019 3:20 pm

AOC = Hugo Chavez en una falda.

mikebartnz
January 5, 2019 3:25 pm

Old Popeye wouldn’t have a clue about economics.
How can someone so thick get voted in.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  mikebartnz
January 5, 2019 3:45 pm

Her opponent in the primary had that idea … didn’t bother showing up to debate …
now we’re stuck with her … or rather , the Dems are .

icisil
Reply to  mikebartnz
January 5, 2019 4:18 pm

Only 4% of eligible voters voted for her. 94% didn’t care enough to vote.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2019 4:52 pm

94% couldn’t read the ballot, in English or Spanish.

MatthewDrobnick
Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2019 5:53 pm

I had to check this because it seemed very low, and even then, it is still terribly low at ~11.5%, just not quite 4%. The real takeaway should be that this district is ~46% hispanic. So these are low information voters who likely voted because of name recognition. Another very poignant example of how critical this wall is:

If you leave your crap country to come to here for opportunity, but you don’t leave your worldview that created that crap in the first place, you will turn the greatness into the same crap you left.

This shouldn’t even be a political debate, but rather one of logic and cultural protection. Aye, my parents would likely have voted for this numbskull.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/28/most-voters-stayed-home-for-stunning-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-win/

Menicholas
Reply to  MatthewDrobnick
January 5, 2019 10:16 pm

46% is the percentage of total people in the district, not voters and not people who voted.
There are also 18.4% white, 16.2% Asian, 11.4% Black, and 4.2% native and “other”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_14th_congressional_district

Interestingly, there are somewhat more foreign born people in the district than people born in the US, although if you add in people born in US territories and islands and people born abroad to US citizen parents, that tips the scale slightly towards natives, as the are collectively referred to in census data.
In any case, trying to make the case that one can determine the amount of information people have by their ethnicity sounds beyond the pale to me. Maybe stick to less ethnically prejudicial statements like pointing out that most people I the US have less info than they ought to have before voting for who will run the country.

https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=36&cd=14

Menicholas
Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2019 10:06 pm

Each congressional district should represent about 703,103 people.
That is the population of the US divided by the number of house seats, or 318.9 million divided by 435.
The actual number of people in the district is listed as 691,813 as of current US census dept data:
https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=36&cd=14

This is people, not voters, and not people of voting age, and not registered voters.

According to Real Clear Politics current data, some 141,122 votes were tallied for the four candidates on the ballot.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2018/state/ny/house/

Of these, Ocrazio Cortez got 110,318.

According to http://www.elections.ny.gov/EnrollmentCD.html, there are 222,403 active democrats registered in NY 14th congressional district, another 19,000+ inactive reg dems, and 364,062 active registered total voters in the district.
So just under half of democrats that are active and registered in that district voted for her, and only about 30% of the active registered voters voted for her.
So, at minimum, if you count all of the people who are in the district, over 15% voted for her.
Of those registered and active, over 3 in 10 did so.
Those are the actual numbers computed from reliable sources.

cerescokid
Reply to  Menicholas
January 5, 2019 10:56 pm

I’ve followed politics for 60 years and I’ve never seen a freshman in Congress suck the air out of coverage like her. I think she is a whack job, but I’m fascinated by how much attention the media is giving her. The MSM quote her because they adore her and share her ideology. She will be quotable machine Duce for the next 2 years.
With all that will be going on, it will be a 24/7 circus in DC.

Menicholas
Reply to  cerescokid
January 6, 2019 1:56 am

Seems unlikely to be boring.
Tedious, infuriating, eyeball rolling, nausea inducing, stomach churning, downright sickening…maybe.
But not boring.
Her soundbites are like watching the Dallas wide receiver getting injured today.
You know you do not really want to see it, but cannot just look away or turn it off before the clip plays.

ICYMI:
https://youtu.be/Rgch1TRmERw

Rhys
Reply to  Menicholas
January 6, 2019 4:54 am

The real election in that district was the primary, the general election doesn’t count in all democrat districts like that. AOC won the primary with about 15,000 votes which is about 4% of eligible voters in the district

Menicholas
Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2019 10:21 pm

BTW…regarding voter turnout…if even 90% of all the registered voters who are NOT democrats in that district had voted, and voted against her…she would have lost by tens of thousands of votes.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
January 5, 2019 10:31 pm

When you do not vote, you are electing to let a bunch of morons and assorted socialist cretins, and all the rest, who may be total jackasses, decide who will be representing you in congress and elsewhere in our government.
As usual, the number of people who decide to let others decide for them are the majority.

Lewis p Buckingham
January 5, 2019 3:30 pm

Rather than alienating her citizens she should try GOOGLE for size and clip its wings.
GOOGLE should be all in favour of saving the planet and she can show them how.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/googles-dutch-sandwich-shielded-245-billion-from-tax-in-2016-20180103-h0cq2g.html

Just a tip,its washed through Delaware, USA.

‘Alphabet’s Google moved 15.9 billion euros ($24.5 billion) to a Bermuda shell company in 2016, regulatory filings in the Netherlands show – saving the company billions of dollars in taxes that year.’

70% of $24.5 Billion, now when will Trump start thinking of that.
It could build a wall or startup nuke with Bill Gates, to solve the ‘climate change’ wars.

Time to send in the Feds.

2.74 As noted earlier, the above investigations are conducted by TIGTA’s OI whose
staff are Federal law enforcement officers and possess both the capability and the
broad range of powers including the authority to carry firearms, to execute and serve
search warrants, and to make arrests.126 In addition, TIGTA does not need to obtain
permission from the US Department of Justice to commence its investigations.

https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/16/2018/10/181018_-_IGT_review_-_ATOs_Fraud_Co.pdf

u.k.(us)
January 5, 2019 3:34 pm

The screen-caps always show her like a deer in the headlights.
She must have said something of substance to get elected, right ?

Dave Fair
Reply to  u.k.(us)
January 5, 2019 4:08 pm

Substance = Not an absent, clueless old white guy in a majority ethnic district.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  u.k.(us)
January 6, 2019 11:57 am

Actually, the pic of her at the top of this post allows her to look a little less clueless than most pics of her that I have seen.

Robert of Ottawa
January 5, 2019 3:35 pm

She’s actually envious of Nancy Pelosi’s house and wants one just like it. She’s operating on the “squeaky wheel gets the oil” premise and will soon be inundated with lobbyists for particular causes, to whom she will be able to rent out her vote.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 5, 2019 9:42 pm

She’s operating on the “squeaky wheel gets the oil” premise

As an erstwhile boss if mine used to say at pay rise time, “sometimes the squeaky wheel just gets replaced!”

John Endicott
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 7, 2019 12:49 pm

I always liked Minsc’s (from the “Baldur’s Gate” game) “the squeaky wheel gets the kick”.

Michael Jankowski
January 5, 2019 3:43 pm

I don’t mind the idea of increasing taxes on the uber-wealthy. I don’t care if they pay a disproportionate share of income taxes…they should. And it helps make up for all of the regressive taxes middle and lower-class folks pay, tax loopholes and laws they can take advantage of, etc.

But let’s put it towards something useful, not her stupid ideas.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
January 5, 2019 5:58 pm

Even under a flat tax, those who make more will pay more. It should be about what’s fair and progressive tax rates are definitely not fair, while a flat tax is the most fair. Just because someone learned the skills to make more money then others, doesn’t mean that they should be paying disproportionally more taxes.

MarkW
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
January 5, 2019 7:08 pm

Why should someone be forced to pay more, just because they have more?
Do you really believe success should be punished?
As to these so called regressive taxes, please name them.
SS and Medicare aren’t regressive, they are a flat tax.
The cap on SS doesn’t matter because what you get back from SS is determined by how much you put in.
Fuel taxes and such are usage taxes, you are taxed based on how much you use, not how much you have, as it should be.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 7:09 pm

PS: I’m willing to be that in your mind “something useful” works out to, “something I benefit from”.

Steve Heins
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 7:16 pm

MarkW shows how little he knows about taxes.

“Why should someone be forced to pay more, just because they have more?”

The answer is they are not. If a multi-billionaire earns no INCOME the pay no income tax.

MarkW is unable to distinguish “income” from “wealth.”

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 5, 2019 7:56 pm

You are the only one fixated on the difference between wealth and income.
No doubt because you know that you don’t have an actual argument, so distraction and screeching is the best you can do.

Steve Heins
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 8:17 pm

My argument is that there is a difference between wealth and income. What argument do you have?

tsk tsk
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 8:34 pm

Steve’s argument in short:

If a slave does no work, then he’s not really a slave.

Seems reasonable.

Steve Heins
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 8:46 pm

Agreed tsk tsk, it’s kind of like, If a wife does not f..k, then she’s not really a wife.

tsk tsk
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 9:09 pm

How witty of Steve. He has mastered the schools of marital and economic comedy.

But let’s continue with your “argument” (I’m working on being kind to those less capable this year).

Can you explain how income does not become wealth? Apparently you think that occasional cortex’s plan is A-OK because it focuses on the former. Is there perhaps some special set of laws where you live that prohibit you from spending a dollar earned through capital gains while allowing you to spend one “earned” through what I suspect is your government job? Or perhaps you think that a nominal increase in capital gains is equivalent to a real increase regardless of the rate of inflation.

Steve Heins
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 9:18 pm

“Can you explain how income does not become wealth? “

Easy

Joe Six-Pack has a job. He has a good income. Joe Six-Pack has a lot of expenses. Joe Six-Pack lives paycheck to paycheck. Joe Six-Pack has nothing in his bank account, owns a six year old car, rents his home and has lots of credit card debt.

tsk tsk
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 10:06 pm

So Steve, er Joe Six-Pack, can’t manage money and consumes everything he has and therefore should be rewarded. Let’s call him the grasshopper. Meanwhile Tsk Tsk defers his gratification and invests and therefore deserves to be punished. Let’s call him the ant.

See, Mark’s original question asked why someone who has more should be faced to pay more. So let’s continue with your grasshopper defense: As long as I spend every penny I make, then I should have to pay taxes. I mean, that *is* your argument for Joe. Or are you now going to claim that there’s a threshold above which that no longer applies? If you do that, then you have to admit that you completely failed to answer Mark’s original question.

I can’t wait for the witty reply.

tsk tsk
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 10:11 pm

should=shouldn’t (obviously)

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2019 12:54 pm

That sounds of crickets you hear? that’s Steve’s reply.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2019 12:59 pm

As far as “fair” goes, possibly the most “fair” way to collect taxes would be to tax it when you spend it (one of our Founding Fathers said all taxes are unfair, but a consumption tax may be the least unfair, but I can’t find the quote now). First a disclaimer, I favor a federal sales tax only if it REPLACES the income tax, do NOT give the government another tax stream to gleefully waste just as congress did in the ’90s when there was a budget surplus! The primary advantage is, the tax can be avoided by simply not purchasing. Secondly, it is more difficult to dodge than an income tax, something that becomes important for those with under-the-table income (yes I mean drug dealers and pimps and the like). Third, nearly every state has a sales-tax collection apparatus (even NH allows local governments to collect sales tax, it wouldn’t be hard to expand that), and it wouldn’t be any harder to collect a 25% sales tax than an 8% sales tax (this is based on several reports that estimate it would take a 17% sales tax rate to generate the same revenue as the current income taxes generate), so the federal government could completely eliminate the IRS and not have to replace it!

The plan I favor the most eliminates ALL withholding (taxes) such as SS, Medicare/Medicaid and etc. I would like to get a paycheck that exactly equals my salary, that would be cool! But if you get your medical insurance through your employer and the employer doesn’t pay 100% of the premium (true of what, 99% of employers who “provide” medical insurance?) there will still be withholding, so…

One other thing I’d like to add to the legislation… the 17% can be decreased by a committee report, but to increase would take a majority of both houses of Congress and the President’s signature; legislation IOW (so the politicians would agree to never lower it because it would be a hassle to raise it again, but maybe there’s a way around that, too… give a range within which it can be adjusted by committee report, but beyond that…? Let’s say ±4%age points? +4, -8?).

This is something we need to talk about, our current system is seriously broken!

hunter
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
January 6, 2019 7:44 am

If one person= 1 vote is good then there is no moral justification for “progressive” taxes.

Chip
January 5, 2019 3:43 pm

Tax carbon to get less of it.

Tax money to get more of it.

Makes sense.

On the outer Barcoo
January 5, 2019 3:51 pm

Give her an inch and she thinks she’s a ruler …

u.k.(us)
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
January 5, 2019 4:33 pm

“Caesars don’t fear the reaper.”
Couple of different ways you can take that.

PaulH
January 5, 2019 3:58 pm

The wealthy French know how to deal with tippy-top taxes. Get up and go…

http://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures

“A total of 3,744 people who earned 100,000 euros per year or more left France in 2013, a 40 percent increase compared to 2012, French financial newspaper Les Echos revealed citing figures from the national tax-collecting office.”

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  PaulH
January 5, 2019 11:24 pm

It’s the obvious outcome when you try to use people. Who in a position to be taxed 60% would stick around to be so fleeced?

drednicolson
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
January 7, 2019 1:01 am

You’d have to build a wall to keep them in, after confiscating their private jets. That’d go over well, amirite. Silly rabbit, open borders are for Muslims!

Kenji
January 5, 2019 3:58 pm

Electing sophomoric taqueria waitress to the US House of Rep’s. has consequences … NONE of which are positive or helpful to the American people.

gringojay
January 5, 2019 4:22 pm

“… Tippy tops …” is a what passes for eloquence in contemporary expression. How quaint that constitutional republic politics has been re-juven-ated.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  gringojay
January 5, 2019 5:56 pm

It’s “… Tipsy tops …” (She was a barmaid.)

Jones
January 5, 2019 4:22 pm

What does her chum Maria Chavas think about all this?

“Maria Gabriela Chávez Net Worth: Hugo Chávez’s Daughter Richest Woman in Venezuela, Worth $4.2 Billion”

https://www.latinpost.com/articles/71424/20150812/maria-gabriela-ch%C3%A1vez-net-worth-hugo-ch%C3%A1vezs-daughter-richest-woman-in-venezuela-worth-4-2-billion.htm

Jones
Reply to  Jones
January 5, 2019 4:31 pm

“What does her chum Maria Chavas think about all this?”

The phrase that comes to mind is “Let them eat cake”. Shame there’s none left on the shelves….

January 5, 2019 4:36 pm

She is not only the youngest new congress woman/person, but (pardon my non PC) the stupidest congress person to come on the scene. She knows nothing about the data, would like to see her debate Ted Cruz on climate change:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

I wonder how she would do with his questions, etc. ???

rah
Reply to  Jon P Peterson
January 5, 2019 5:15 pm

That is why NBC Meet the Press will allow no “deniers”. Imagine what would happen if the likes of this fool had to answer serious questions.

Reply to  rah
January 5, 2019 6:31 pm

She would have no answers that would make any sense…

Tom Abbott
January 5, 2019 4:39 pm

How many people want to spend 70 percent of their time working for the government?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2019 9:47 pm

Nobody, but most of us do when you consider income tax, sales tax (VAT/GST) and duty on fuel, alcohol and tabacco.

Even if governments could tax you at 100% they would still run out of money.

Bob Meyer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 6, 2019 2:34 am

Government employees spend 100% of their time working for the government. They think that when the tax rate reaches 100% then they’ll be self employed.

rah
January 5, 2019 4:46 pm

Look up the term “low brow” and you’ll find her picture right next to Hank Johnsons.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  rah
January 5, 2019 11:28 pm

And they both won by landslide numbers. That should tell us something about at least 2 districts. Perhaps they will jointly introduce a bill to ship millions of rubber duckies to Guam to keep it from tipping over…

Reply to  Bill Murphy
January 6, 2019 10:23 am

Rubberduckist!!!

Tom in Florida
January 5, 2019 4:49 pm

You must understand how liberals see taxing. It is not how much you pay, it is how much you have left over. They believe that there is a monetary threshold, a tipping point if you will, above which people do not need to have in order to live, so anything over that should to go to the government. This is their sense of “fairness” and they do not see anything wrong with it.

rah
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 5, 2019 4:56 pm

Yep! In their mind, it’s not your money. It’s theirs and they are the ones that should decide how much of their money you should be allowed to keep.

JR
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 5, 2019 5:15 pm

You didn’t build that…..

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 5, 2019 7:35 pm

I had one young liberal tell me that the higher you raise taxes, the harder people will work.
In his mind, everybody had a goal for how well they wanted to live, and if government took half of the money they earned, they would just work twice as hard in order to maintain the same income.

leowaj
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 8:05 pm

MarkW, if you encounter said young liberal again, please ask him if he’s ever kayaked against rapids. Then ask him if rowing twice as hard against rapids makes a real difference.

If he asks, “Why would you kayak upstream against rapids?” Respond with, “Why should a person work twice as hard to offset the force of a greedy and obese government?”

Menicholas
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2019 11:41 pm

Followed to it’s logical conclusion, taxes ought just be raised to 99.9%, and everyone would work 1000 times harder to maintain the same income.
After all, if we learned one thing from all of the communist countries in the 20th century, it is that people who having nothing to show for hard work will just work harder so that those who do nothing can take it easy.

Cinder
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2019 8:37 pm

Does not sound like somebody who works at all. Working harder is not likely to increase most people’s wages. It is working more hours. Does he believe the average person want to double their work hours.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 6, 2019 10:19 am

For all Liberals, and the envious in general, “wealthy” is anyone who makes more than I do.

rah
January 5, 2019 4:54 pm

I really have to wonder if these new democrats want to start a civil war.

January 5, 2019 5:04 pm

Has no one noticed that the author of this article referred to her as a “Progressive” rather than the Socialist she personally admits to being? Why is the press trying to conceal her political beliefs if not to try to sugar-coat the pill as they try to make us swallow it?

markl
Reply to  MobileAviator
January 5, 2019 5:17 pm

Progressives/Socialists are of the same cloth and have co-opted the Democratic party.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  MobileAviator
January 5, 2019 5:25 pm

I can’t figure out why she’s getting so much press ?

2hotel9
Reply to  u.k.(us)
January 5, 2019 6:03 pm

Leftists run media, Occasional-Cortex is a leftist, what part are you not getting?

u.k.(us)
Reply to  2hotel9
January 5, 2019 6:33 pm

OK, put it this way, why are the republicans/news media so fixated upon her ?
It seems like it is just click-bait.