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+10Progressive 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.”
…
I guess we can no longer say Ocasio-Cortez has not thought about how to fund her new green deal.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sorry for the redundancy, but:
‘If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.’
A lot depends on whether that 25 year old is still in college.
Precocious youths have a different time frame. Liberal up to 15, conservative by 16.
SR
Eric Worrall says: “from past efforts to confiscate wealth, “
.
.
Worrall doesn’t know the difference between taxing income and taxing wealth.
Is that really the best you can do?
If you have a point to make, please make it.
I did. I’m not surprised that you missed it.
Round 2: If you have a point to make, please make it.
“Eric Worrall says: “from past efforts to confiscate wealth, “
.
.
Worrall doesn’t know the difference between taxing income and taxing wealth.”
Steve Heins does not know the difference between what people think and crap he makes up inside his own head, and thinks that his random musings are facts.
Round 2: He did. It’s still no surprise that you missed it.
Taxing income is easy these days, as it is mostly electronic. Ever wonder why cash is king?
Taxing wealth, however you want to measure that, is a completely different beast. For the wealthy, “wealth” can be hidden. And they do so.
For the “working poor” (Middle class) in electronic records, we can’t hide from the “tax engine”…that sucks “wealth” from the ecconnomy.
Here is a classic on confiscatory taxes written by by Iowa Hawk.
The link was posted here on WUWT. I wish I could remember who found it and posted it here. I bookmarked it back in 2011. I’m betting a few others here bookmarked it as well.
https://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html
(I can imagine Ocasio-Cortez reading this and saying, “So? What’s your point?”)
It’s the rich that are able to high most of their wealth in tax havens, so the tax burden will fall on the usual suspects; The middle class and the poor.
I say pass the 70 pct tax. Make sure it goes into effect immediately. Let the economy collapse and let the people learn.
The media would blame the rich for sabotaging the economy by hiding their money in tax dodges and overseas tax havens.
And the usual myrmidons will nod their heads in thoughtless agreement.
Well bless her heart.
I’m pretty sure Ocasio-Cortez’s noble motive behind the 70% tax is to tax the U.S. into prosperity.
Of course that’s never worked before, but that’s only because it wasn’t done right.
Everybody fasten your seatbelts for the ride into Utopia.
*sigh*
For once, I am in agreement with her. Let’s just take 70% of all wealth from all those who are worth more than say $1 million and also voted for a liberal, and use the money to build sea-walls around all threatened cities…(you know, those that would benefit from having a sea wall to keep out hurricane tidal surges).
I think this would serve two purposes – better prepare cities for severe weather events and teach some voters a lesson.
Indeed. I think the IRS should compile a list of all those who would fall within the prevue of such a tax (based on the most recent years tax returns) and then those people should be publicly asked if they support such a tax. Then pass a tax bill that taxes all those that favored it that level of tax (thus getting the tax rate that they claim to support) and all those who didn’t can stay at the current rate.
You know, there is no law saying a person cannot pay MORE taxes than required. I would suggest that those who think they wouldn’t mind paying more should do so voluntarily.
Indeed, whenever someone proposes increasing taxes, they should be asked how much they are currently paying and why they are not already voluntarily paying the greater amount that they are proposing and insist that they should lead by example and start voluntarily paying the greater amount that they are proposing.
I think it might be very helpful and instructive to have anyone who publicly goes on record on the subject, be required to pay the amount they are advocating should be paid by others.
If by saying this, she automatically signed herself up for the rates she is suggesting, my guess is most such people would instantly become very quiet on the subject.
Well, if AOC paid 70% of her $174,000 congressional salary in taxes that would still leave her at $52,200, or probably about twice what she made before as a bar tender, so she might be dense enough to go for it… for a while. But as a wanna be Maduro, that wouldn’t last long.
70? Might as well be 80%! Why not?? I’d ask the young Congresswoman how countries with higher taxes than the US, say, like Greece, do with collection. The entire Greek culture is built around avoiding paying taxes or fees. No? Mexico is same. Most of latin America same. Normal folks go to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying taxes. Entire economies are under the table.
She lived in NYC. I’d ask her, … you were a bartender…. did you claim and pay income tax on all of your tips? Honestly?
Cortez behaves and thinks like a character straight out of the film “Idiocracy”
From my observations, rich people are very mobile and have business interests in a variety of places.
While no one in the trade can recall being ever chartered by ordinary low income families relocating to tax-safe destinations.
It boils down to the projection that, once the rich are gone, only the poor remain.
The question to ask, as usual, is:
What effect will the proposals have on global temperatures, assuming the underlying theory is correct?
It is at least consistent and principled to argue for a 70% tax rate and conversion to renewables by 2030 if that will, according to the theory, materially reduce global emissions and consequently, in the theory, global warming.
But actually what is being advocated is too small to deliver any direct reduction in global emissions, and there is no evidence, not even any argument offered, that it will prompt the other large emitters to reduce by force of example.
So the question is, why advocate doing it?
We see this all the time with the green movement. There was, for instance, the mania about turning off standby appliances. Useless. There is the wind turbine mania, also useless – and may even increase emissions. There were the proposals to disinvest from fossil fuel companies. No arguments given as to why this would help at all. We had the EU mania for substituting diesel for gasoline cars. Again, no evidence that increased mpg actually translated into lower fuel consumption and hence lower emissions.
The essential feature of the movement is that it demands we do things which, if its own arguments are correct, are useless, and it also refuses to advocate doing things, which, if its own arguments are correct, are both effective and essential.
Any thorough analysis of the phenomenon must start by asking why this is.
The biggest impact will come from the sizeable drop in economic activity caused by the 70% tax rate.
And yet people vote for her.
A lot of people believe in free lunches.
The saying, Panem et circenses (bread and circuses) dates back around 2000 years. Amazing how little has changed.
The lunches are always free – when it’s other people’s money paying for it.
TANSTAAFL. Look it up-“The moon is a harsh mistress” by Robert Heinlein.
You mean TINSTAAFL (Ain’t ain’t a word, as they say. It’s not considered a proper word, so using it in an acronym is equally not proper besides which “ain’t no” is a double negative and thus reverses the meaning of the expression which is properly expresses as “is no”). Which rather suggests you didn’t catch the point of the post you are replying to. Read it again:
“The lunches are always free – when it’s other people’s money paying for it”
notice the last 6 words.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it’s bad English. Technically it’s saying that there IS such a thing as a free lunch. But the point is that SOMEONE always pays. There is no such thing as a free lunch. **Everything** costs someone something. But I’m starting to get into philosophy, so I will cease and desist.
If I were to create a phony politician to discredit progressives by getting them to support an absolutely idiotic policy, I would have created Ocasio-Cortez. She could be the Sokal Hoax of politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind including our federal government has no control. So collecting huge sums of money to be used to try to do something that mankind does not have the power to do is a total waste and will devastate the economy. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate so there is nothing to be gained from stopping the climate from changing even if we could. We do not know what the optimum climate for the Earth is so even if we could change the Earth’s climate we do not what to change it to.
Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So even if we could eliminate all CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere, extinguishing all life as we know it in the process, the effort would have no effect on the Earth’s changing climate. Rather than trying to make the global economy work as inefficiently as possible we should be trying to make it run as efficiently as possible.
There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. Those that think that the use of fossil fuels is bad are free to stop making use of all goods and services that in some way make use of fossil fuels. After all it is their money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. Come up with a truly better alternative than fossil fuels and market pressures will quickly insure that the better alternative takes over the market place and poorer alternative gets phased out. No government intervention or new taxes are required.
Progressive Socialist believes anybody with a job is rich. Here what she dosen’t understand. Social justice and social freedom is an illusion without individual justice and individual freedom. That is why socialism, communism and totalitarianism only works at the barrel end of a gun.
Eat the rich!
I came across this years ago.
Excellent !
Sorry, GD, hadn’t spotted that you had posted this when I did the same further down.
No problem.
It needs repeating.
PS When I found it, the commenter added this to the Dr’s quote:
She’s appealing to the next generation. It’s no wonder she got voted in…
Free education, Free Health, Housing, Jobs… and to pay for it, tax the rich because they can afford it and that money can fix climate change. It all sounds simple and wonderful for the nuffers who believe it.
Problem is taxing the rich won’t get half of it, they will need to tax the upper and middle class too and then you have no incentive for people get ahead, so you might as well live off the Government and see unemployment go up, businesses leave turn the country in to a second rate country.
She really needs to understand what fossil fuels actually make, because wind and solar aren’t going to keep the steel and concrete industries going. It’s actually impossible for a developed country to go 100% renewable. It’s all pie in the sky stuff and they need to be held accountable for such ridiculous comments.
Socialism = Rape
Capitalism = Consent
Reanne , I think that, whilst I agree with all your comments , most of us may be underestimating this young lady’s political acumen. You mention that her position is based on eg:
…. tax the rich because they can afford it….
and
….taxing the rich won’t get half of it, they will need to tax the upper and middle class too ….
I believe that this program would work , because consider some the richest cities and states of the US and Canada :
Vancouver, Seattle, California , Washington DC, New York.
In all of these the impression that I get from the media and from sites such as this is that those voters have decided that taxes , income , wealth or carbon , are needed and acceptable , and should be applied immediately to halt climate change.
These are the wealthiest populations in N America and the most vocal for taxation. This young politician has noticed that and responded quite, IMO, rationally. Perhaps she is right.
No one outside of Democrat Party and leftist colleges is ” vocal for taxation”. Or are you trying to be sarcastic?
No 2h I was not being sarcastic , but realistic. Assuming that my knowledge of US politics as acquired from this site is reasonably accurate the Democrats have become the party not necessarily OF , but , FOR , the rich liberal/ left elite . These congregate in the cities and states mentioned, dominate politics there and are in favour of all that AOC demands .
I wonder whether she might have as great , and certainly more permanent, influence on the Democrats as Sarah Palin had with the Republicans.
OK, you embrace socialism. Got it. You are severely mentally ill. I suggest you seek some form of help for that. The kind that removes you, permanently, from any electoral process is the one I would recommend.
mike, you are conflating group decision making with the opinion of everyone in the group.
Those who are the most vocal for higher taxation are not the ones who will paying those taxes.
A socialist who wants to tax “the rich.” How unoriginal. What happens when the wealthy move to a low tax country?
That’s when the government starts building walls. To keep the productive in.
If I wanted America to Fail: a modern economic homage to Paul Harvey
LOL those are income tax tariffs that even the Dutch deemed too high and destructive.
Must be an occasional joke.
Perhaps they will add another 70% for free healthcare, another 70% for free education/indoctrination, another 70% for income equality, and another 70% to cover the shortfalls of each. Plus 70% to make up for the death of economic activity. Yeah, that’ll work. Hopefully with enough left over to get her a comfy suite in D.C.
In order to understand Ocasio-Cortez’s (or any Socialist’s) ideas on tax the following parable is worthy of repeat:
“Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner bowled them a wrong ‘un.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.”
Drinks for the ten now cost just £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?’
They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the landlord suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a pound out of the £20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, ” but he got £10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I do!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and professors of economics, this is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking elsewhere where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who did understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.”
For those who did understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
truer words were never spoken.