Jump to content

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


markstanco

Recommended Posts

 

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

With 1960 tax brackets. 

LOL are you sure? 

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/

In 2015, the top 1% of households earned 20.65% of all income, and paid 39% of all taxes. 

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

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, this said:

 

LOL are you sure? 

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/

In 2015, the top 1% of households earned 20.65% of all income, and paid 39% of all taxes. 

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

 

 

Yes he is.  He is fully invested in the disingenuous tale of 90% top imcome tax rates.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, this said:

 

LOL are you sure? 

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/

In 2015, the top 1% of households earned 20.65% of all income, and paid 39% of all taxes. 

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

 

 

Yes. I am sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes. I am sure.

 You may want to maybe research things before taking a stand:

There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The graph below shows the average tax rate that the top 1 percent of Americans have faced over the last century. The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years.[2]

Average Effective Tax Rate on the Top 1 Percent of U.S. Households

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.

All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3]

How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]

There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s.

  • The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
  • Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
  • Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the top 1 percent.

All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.

 

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm fine with all of that. I'm not concerned with just the 1%.

No you're not just concerned about the 1%, you're unhinged about the 1%. Hell, you're unhinged about anybody making more than $100k, and not paying 60-75% of that back in taxes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, this said:

You're the one with the coolstorybro, I was responding to another poster's claim that Apple doesn't pay any taxes. Even with 50% of "Ireland ownership" the company bought out will pay US taxes on US profits. No way to dodge them. 

You have no understanding of our tax structure you 9 to 5er, and you're mad that your wage is stagnated. You learn nothing new, you get paid for nothing new. 

Just so that you dumbasses are clear, in 2015(the latest tax foundation data that I can find) Apple paid nearly HALF as much in income taxes as the bottom 50% of this country. So the bottom half needs to STFU about fair share or pony up cash.

 

Yeah, nobody is impressed that you work the swing shift.  Sure, you get to sleep in, but I bet your social life suffers.  Go fuck yourself, you pretentious self-important piece of shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No you're not just concerned about the 1%, you're unhinged about the 1%. Hell, you're unhinged about anybody making more than $100k, and not paying 60-75% of that back in taxes.

Please tax me more because I went to school and landed a job in an in-demand field! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm fine with all of that. I'm not concerned with just the 1%.

So you're OK with people hiding their money, us collecting less in taxes and spending more on IRS so that we can enforce those ridiculous rates? 

Gotcha. Your America sounds like a dream!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

Yeah, nobody is impressed that you work the swing shift.  Sure, you get to sleep in, but I bet your social life suffers.  Go fuck yourself, you pretentious self-important piece of shit.

What you meant is "thank you you self important piece of shit" because I subsidize your ass. You're welcome you middle class piece of shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

Is this the part where you pretend you're rich?

Its the internet, why not? And teach you that its the 1% that's subsidizing your ass. Not the other way around. Next time you see a one percenter, bow your  head and say thank you. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, this said:

What you meant is "thank you you self important piece of shit" because I subsidize your ass. You're welcome you middle class piece of shit. 

Details, please.  I love to hear from those in my industry.  Tell everyone exactly what I do and how you subsidize me.

Edited by Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is consistently the biggest dumpster fire on this board. It’s like a rotating carousel of douchbaggery.


You showed up to round it out, though. You and your wry, detached Anastasis “blecch.” I’m going to steal your silverware.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

 


You showed up to round it out, though. You and your wry, detached Anastasis “blecch.” I’m going to steal your silverware.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

giphy.gif

 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

18 pages for a soon-to-be-freshman-House-member-who-actually-hasn't-been-elected-yet just so the conservitards could spew their manufactured outraged talking points about socialism. 

It’s already surpassed the Hillary thread and that’s saying something 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama only endorsed swing districts and seats.  This district voted for Hillary by 58 points.  She might as well start picking out which office she wants in one of Cannon, Longworth or Rayburn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-bronx-sf-mission-district-13120878.php

 

Fresh off the heels of a Democratic congressional primary win in New York, politician and organizer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will make be in San Francisco's Mission District this evening for two fundraising events. 

Ocasio-Cortez is first set to appear at 7 p.m. at The Assembly at 449 14th St. Available tickets for the event run between $500 and $2,700. 

...

Although Ocasio-Cortez hails from New York, Shandi Singh, co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America's San Francisco chapter, said many people in the Bay Area are very interested in hearing what she has to say. 

"San Francisco is considered a bastion of progressiveness in America, yet we're dealing with an exacerbation of the same problems," Singh said. "We should listen to what this young woman of color has to say ... it speaks volumes that her message resonates here." 

The response to the 7:30 p.m. event has been so great that organizers were forced to move it at the last minute from the El Rio bar to the Gray Area/Grand Theater. Between 400 and 500 people are expected to attend the sold-out event. 

While event-goers are being asked to donate toward Ocasio-Cortez's campaign, no one will be turned away for lack of funds, Singh said. 

"It's really a great opportunity to get plugged in on what's going on in this city," she said, adding that several Bay Area activists will attend and speak. "You're going to have the city's best and brightest here tonight." 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a critique on people that do nothing but pontificate on the internet while the people that actually care are the ones out doing something.

That's not it at all. It's mocking the people who claim you can't criticize something if you participate in the current system.  

So if an elderly person criticizes Social Security but has a logical argument against the current setup then idiots will dismiss the argument. Or if a recent college graduate complains about corporate pay structures while working for a large corporation they get dismissed by that idiotic argument.

 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So the guy coming out of the well is an internet poster, and the serf is someone who wants change but also works toward that in real life.

i get that, but why the dialogue of the internet poster, is it absurdist/non-sequiter humor?

Cartoons are like gossamer, and one doesn't dissect gossamer.   It's merely a commentary on contemporary mores. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a common fallacious argument and a lazy ad hominem attack.

'You're a socialist yet you make money - your argument is invalid."

"Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine is rich and lives in Beverly HIlls, ergo, his opinions are invalid."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

It's a common fallacious argument and a lazy ad hominem attack.

'You're a socialist yet you make money - your argument is invalid."

"Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine is rich and lives in Beverly HIlls, ergo, his opinions are invalid."

but tom morello is completely hypocritical in that he sings about rolling down rodeo with a shotgun whilst actually living in beverly hills. not the best example, i reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Are we sure Tom lives in Beverly Hills?

i have no idea, but i was using that hypothetical as an actual critique. that would actually be entirely disingenuous of tom if that were the case. it's a little different than the corporate schlub (me) complaining about corporate america cares more about quarterly results than long term strategy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

But how are those opinions valid(in the TM example above if the example is he's advocating against being rich and comfortable because there are too many poor people), in the sense they are neutral and honest and of integrity, if they are in obvious contrast to the actions of the one stating the opinion? Unless getting rich is done in irony or something?

I think there's a pretty obvious difference between the poor person who criticizes corporate structure and yet works for a corporation, or the political person who despises the system yet participates it, and -- for example -- a wealthy person criticizing the system by which he/she became wealthy.

The typical anti-corporate person who works for a corporation is working for that corporation because it is the only way to survive, and it is by exposure to that corporate system that their opinion is informed. By the same token, that person can work for change from within, as much as possible.

The same is true for someone who criticizes the very political system she participates in. By participating, she learns more about the system, and can try to effect as much good change as possible from within the system's limitations.

An extremely wealthy person opposing wealth inequality is not entirely in the same position. I'm not necessarily speaking about Tom Morello, because I don't know his politics in detail; I do think it's sufficient to say that being Socialist and being Communist are not entirely the same thing. But where this person's situation differs from my first example is that Morello is well past the "doing what one needs to do to survive" point.

All that said, there is something to the argument that the vast difference between the billionaires of the USA and the median household income can be opposed by a Tom Morello, because as wealthy as Morello is, he's still very much closer to the median than he is to the extreme wealth of the likes of Bill Gates, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • hayden_horn changed the title to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


×
×
  • Create New...