AOC believes a system that allows Billionaires to exist is immoral

[Deleted User #4049]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

Actually, you make a good point. We shouldnt grant them incentives to keep expanding their companies. They practically are already monopolies on their respective industries, why give them a reason to expand? It would be economically wiser to intact AOC's plan, as that would mean companies have no reason to expand beyond a certain point, allowing other businesses to crop up and take up shelf space, instead of Amazon just buying everything else in the sector and having complete control over a sector of the econo

Lol do you know what the size of Amazon and Microsoft were when Bezos and Gates became Billionaires . Bill Gates became a billionaire in 1987 when Windows 2.0 came out and Bezos had become a billionaire in the late 90s . Amazon wasn’t even that big of influential in the late 90s.

So in your mind the world would be better if Microsoft couldn’t grow and innovative from where it was in 1987 or Amazon from the late 1990s lol

The world would be much, much better off if Amazon did not exist.

No it wouldn’t


Online shopping wouldn’t have developed without them and cloud might not be as good with them either

Amazon has absolutely devastated small business brick and mortar retail. Over 200,000 businesses destroyed, and that's something I read four or five years ago, it's probably higher even now. This is the bedrock of America, and Amazon is systematically destroying it to feed Bezos' wallets and ego. They must be stopped; the company should be broken apart like yesterday.

I don't care about "technological advancement" when it destroys the bedrock of society. The tech barons need to be stopped by any means necessary.

[Badger]

Amazon desperately needs broken up, but not destroyed. IRC it's only recently become legal for states to charge sales tax for online purchases. Long long overdue. This isn't 1993. To put it mildly the internet economy doesn't need cocooned with such protections.

[OSR stands with Israel]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

Actually, you make a good point. We shouldnt grant them incentives to keep expanding their companies. They practically are already monopolies on their respective industries, why give them a reason to expand? It would be economically wiser to intact AOC's plan, as that would mean companies have no reason to expand beyond a certain point, allowing other businesses to crop up and take up shelf space, instead of Amazon just buying everything else in the sector and having complete control over a sector of the econo

Lol do you know what the size of Amazon and Microsoft were when Bezos and Gates became Billionaires . Bill Gates became a billionaire in 1987 when Windows 2.0 came out and Bezos had become a billionaire in the late 90s . Amazon wasn’t even that big of influential in the late 90s.

So in your mind the world would be better if Microsoft couldn’t grow and innovative from where it was in 1987 or Amazon from the late 1990s lol

The world would be much, much better off if Amazon did not exist.

No it wouldn’t


Online shopping wouldn’t have developed without them and cloud might not be as good with them either

Amazon has absolutely devastated small business brick and mortar retail. Over 200,000 businesses destroyed, and that's something I read four or five years ago, it's probably higher even now. This is the bedrock of America, and Amazon is systematically destroying it to feed Bezos' wallets and ego. They must be stopped; the company should be broken apart like yesterday.

I don't care about "technological advancement" when it destroys the bedrock of society. The tech barons need to be stopped by any means necessary.

Do you have the same opinion about Wal-Mart

 

Amazon desperately needs broken up, but not destroyed. IRC it's only recently become legal for states to charge sales tax for online purchases. Long long overdue. This isn't 1993. To put it mildly the internet economy doesn't need cocooned with such protections.

Maybe in the future they will need to be broken up but I don’t think the time is now

[dead0man]

Amazon has absolutely devastated small business brick and mortar retail.

didn't Wal Mart do this twenty years ago?  How many times can "brick and mortar" be destroyed?  Have you driven around lately?  Other than malls, there seems to be small businesses everywhere, plenty of them new.  Perhaps Omaha is special?

[parochial boy]

Our country has a system where the President of the United States is ostensibly worth $3.1 billion dollars and yet there are dozens of homeless veterans sleeping on the streets two blocks from where he lives. If that's not the definition of a broken, immoral system, then I don't know what is.

However, to me that's not necessarily an argument for a Huey Long-esque maximum legal wealth and/or the overthrow of capitalism itself, it's an argument for much higher taxation of the rich, including making our income tax system a wealth tax, at least for the rich, and raising the capital gains tax, then using the new revenue to fund social programs to help the poor and working classes.

Are some billionaires immoral of course  but being one in and itself is not and that is what she is saying . If you did the type of redestribution of wealth she calls for it would destroy our economy and create much more poverty .


Also many of her buddies on the TYT think that’s what should happen and her views and all
Of the justice Democrats  are basically just a copy of many of the hosts on TYT.

Some people having more wealth than others (even MUCH more) is not inherently immoral, but this country simultaneously being home to Jeff Bezos, a man worth $125 billion dollars, and 40 million people who rely on SNAP to meet their basic food needs is obviously and clearly broken. And yet old out of touch people like Herman Cain, who called AOC clueless on Fox Business a few hours ago, will yell "BUT MUH CLASS WARFARE" if we even remotely do anything to fix the obvious and gigantic problem. As if ever-widening wealth inequality and tax cuts for the wealthy aren't class warfare.

And just because AOC believes things other people who you don't like believe doesn't make AOC's views dumb. TYT is stupid, but AOC isn't.

The reason Jeff Bezos net worth is what it is is because of how much the stocks of Amazon are worth . If he sold his share of the company he maybe would only get 10-15% of what his stocks are worth right now so that number is misleading .

For the millionth time, that is not how it works - please stop peddling your poorly understood concept of how net wealth works

[President Johnson]

I don't think being very wealthy itsself is immoral. If I own a company worth 10 billion, I'm also a billionaire, but I usually employ thousands of people. If someone makes billions on the backs of workers who get paid a disgusting loan, it is immoral. Just look at Walmart. But this can happen anywhere, small family owned businesses included.

The actual problem is that while we have a very wealthy elite, we have way too many poor people (for a couple of reasons). Working 40 hours a week and not getting enough pay to make ends meat is disgusting, while CEOs at the same making millions of dollars. Of course, being a CEO is a tough job with a lot of responsibilities, but some of the salaries and bonuses being paid are abhorrant. Especially when these CEOs ruin a company or bank like in the 2008 crash (and even don't face criminal indictment).

Another problem are trusts and cartels. We have a bunch of companies that are much, much too powerful and have way too influence over political decisions.

Oh I definitely agree with you there that the bonuses all the executives got after the 2008 wall street crash was abhorrent and instead many of them should have been jailed or at the very least fired in disgrace.

I also agree trusts are a big problem especially the ones that are too big to fail and they should be broken up.

This pretty much nails it. It's a bigger issue that we have too many people struggling rather than a bunch of billionaires.

Another major factor is that work often gets more taxed than incomes through investments/hedge funds. This needs to be reversed to make sure low and middle incomes (and small businesses) are strenghtend. In addition, tax loopholes must be closed. I'm strongly supportive of a progressive tax system and think personal incomes over 500,000 dollars should have a top tax rate of 50% while lower income folks should pay far less.

What AOC is talking about is some sort of phony populism and vodoo economics, because it implies every billionaire has just tons of money on his or her bank account. But this is not how net worth works. Mike Bloomberg for example is a billionaire through his business, which employs a lot of people and is a businesspartner for other businsses. The guy himself doesn't have 36 billion on his bank account that is just "avaiable for confiscation".

[OSR stands with Israel]

Our country has a system where the President of the United States is ostensibly worth $3.1 billion dollars and yet there are dozens of homeless veterans sleeping on the streets two blocks from where he lives. If that's not the definition of a broken, immoral system, then I don't know what is.

However, to me that's not necessarily an argument for a Huey Long-esque maximum legal wealth and/or the overthrow of capitalism itself, it's an argument for much higher taxation of the rich, including making our income tax system a wealth tax, at least for the rich, and raising the capital gains tax, then using the new revenue to fund social programs to help the poor and working classes.

Are some billionaires immoral of course  but being one in and itself is not and that is what she is saying . If you did the type of redestribution of wealth she calls for it would destroy our economy and create much more poverty .


Also many of her buddies on the TYT think that’s what should happen and her views and all
Of the justice Democrats  are basically just a copy of many of the hosts on TYT.

Some people having more wealth than others (even MUCH more) is not inherently immoral, but this country simultaneously being home to Jeff Bezos, a man worth $125 billion dollars, and 40 million people who rely on SNAP to meet their basic food needs is obviously and clearly broken. And yet old out of touch people like Herman Cain, who called AOC clueless on Fox Business a few hours ago, will yell "BUT MUH CLASS WARFARE" if we even remotely do anything to fix the obvious and gigantic problem. As if ever-widening wealth inequality and tax cuts for the wealthy aren't class warfare.

And just because AOC believes things other people who you don't like believe doesn't make AOC's views dumb. TYT is stupid, but AOC isn't.

The reason Jeff Bezos net worth is what it is is because of how much the stocks of Amazon are worth . If he sold his share of the company he maybe would only get 10-15% of what his stocks are worth right now so that number is misleading .

For the millionth time, that is not how it works - please stop peddling your poorly understood concept of how net wealth works

Assets-Liabilities


 



 

[parochial boy]

Our country has a system where the President of the United States is ostensibly worth $3.1 billion dollars and yet there are dozens of homeless veterans sleeping on the streets two blocks from where he lives. If that's not the definition of a broken, immoral system, then I don't know what is.

However, to me that's not necessarily an argument for a Huey Long-esque maximum legal wealth and/or the overthrow of capitalism itself, it's an argument for much higher taxation of the rich, including making our income tax system a wealth tax, at least for the rich, and raising the capital gains tax, then using the new revenue to fund social programs to help the poor and working classes.

Are some billionaires immoral of course  but being one in and itself is not and that is what she is saying . If you did the type of redestribution of wealth she calls for it would destroy our economy and create much more poverty .


Also many of her buddies on the TYT think that’s what should happen and her views and all
Of the justice Democrats  are basically just a copy of many of the hosts on TYT.

Some people having more wealth than others (even MUCH more) is not inherently immoral, but this country simultaneously being home to Jeff Bezos, a man worth $125 billion dollars, and 40 million people who rely on SNAP to meet their basic food needs is obviously and clearly broken. And yet old out of touch people like Herman Cain, who called AOC clueless on Fox Business a few hours ago, will yell "BUT MUH CLASS WARFARE" if we even remotely do anything to fix the obvious and gigantic problem. As if ever-widening wealth inequality and tax cuts for the wealthy aren't class warfare.

And just because AOC believes things other people who you don't like believe doesn't make AOC's views dumb. TYT is stupid, but AOC isn't.

The reason Jeff Bezos net worth is what it is is because of how much the stocks of Amazon are worth . If he sold his share of the company he maybe would only get 10-15% of what his stocks are worth right now so that number is misleading .

For the millionth time, that is not how it works - please stop peddling your poorly understood concept of how net wealth works

Assets-Liabilities



 

Umm, no?

You see Cash is an asset like any other - it has the advantage of being the most liquid asset, but is a supremely stupid way to hold your wealth as it generates next to no interest (unlike bonds, say) or associated cash flow (like share dividends).

But not only that, although cash has the advantage of being liquid, this is actually factored into the value of shares. The value of a share should equate to the value of future cash flows generated by ownership of the share* (ie by the company the shares are in), but discounted back to the present value of that cash on the basis of the fact that cash held now is worth more than cash held in the future.

On that basis, Bezos's share-holding is worth the same as the value of cash that will be generated in the future by holding those shares. It is genuine wealth.

If Bezos were to sell his entire shareholding, that would constitute a divestment on his part, meaning both that he would forego the future cash generated and that Amazon would be expected to generate less future cash, meaning the shares were worth, less meaning he would be poorer. That is just how investment and asset values work- if you make bad investment decisions you lose money - it doesn't mean that the assets aren't worth what they supposedly are worth (the same is true with cash, as any Venzuelan would be able to tell you).

In any case, Bezos will be fairly unusual among billionaires in holding most of his portfolio in one company. Most of the super wealthy have diversified asset portolios which protects them from market fluctuations by limiting exposure in any one source.

*if this isn't true in practice, it is because the market is absolutely not a rationale actor, which itself should call into question many of the key assumptions made by the rabid free-marketers

[OSR stands with Israel]

Our country has a system where the President of the United States is ostensibly worth $3.1 billion dollars and yet there are dozens of homeless veterans sleeping on the streets two blocks from where he lives. If that's not the definition of a broken, immoral system, then I don't know what is.

However, to me that's not necessarily an argument for a Huey Long-esque maximum legal wealth and/or the overthrow of capitalism itself, it's an argument for much higher taxation of the rich, including making our income tax system a wealth tax, at least for the rich, and raising the capital gains tax, then using the new revenue to fund social programs to help the poor and working classes.

Are some billionaires immoral of course  but being one in and itself is not and that is what she is saying . If you did the type of redestribution of wealth she calls for it would destroy our economy and create much more poverty .


Also many of her buddies on the TYT think that’s what should happen and her views and all
Of the justice Democrats  are basically just a copy of many of the hosts on TYT.

Some people having more wealth than others (even MUCH more) is not inherently immoral, but this country simultaneously being home to Jeff Bezos, a man worth $125 billion dollars, and 40 million people who rely on SNAP to meet their basic food needs is obviously and clearly broken. And yet old out of touch people like Herman Cain, who called AOC clueless on Fox Business a few hours ago, will yell "BUT MUH CLASS WARFARE" if we even remotely do anything to fix the obvious and gigantic problem. As if ever-widening wealth inequality and tax cuts for the wealthy aren't class warfare.

And just because AOC believes things other people who you don't like believe doesn't make AOC's views dumb. TYT is stupid, but AOC isn't.

The reason Jeff Bezos net worth is what it is is because of how much the stocks of Amazon are worth . If he sold his share of the company he maybe would only get 10-15% of what his stocks are worth right now so that number is misleading .

For the millionth time, that is not how it works - please stop peddling your poorly understood concept of how net wealth works

Assets-Liabilities



 

Umm, no?

You see Cash is an asset like any other - it has the advantage of being the most liquid asset, but is a supremely stupid way to hold your wealth as it generates next to no interest (unlike bonds, say) or associated cash flow (like share dividends).

But not only that, although cash has the advantage of being liquid, this is actually factored into the value of shares. The value of a share should equate to the value of future cash flows generated by ownership of the share* (ie by the company the shares are in), but discounted back to the present value of that cash on the basis of the fact that cash held now is worth more than cash held in the future.

On that basis, Bezos's share-holding is worth the same as the value of cash that will be generated in the future by holding those shares. It is genuine wealth.

If Bezos were to sell his entire shareholding, that would constitute a divestment on his part, meaning both that he would forego the future cash generated and that Amazon would be expected to generate less future cash, meaning the shares were worth, less meaning he would be poorer. That is just how investment and asset values work- if you make bad investment decisions you lose money - it doesn't mean that the assets aren't worth what they supposedly are worth (the same is true with cash, as any Venzuelan would be able to tell you).

In any case, Bezos will be fairly unusual among billionaires in holding most of his portfolio in one company. Most of the super wealthy have diversified asset portolios which protects them from market fluctuations by limiting exposure in any one source.

*if this isn't true in practice, it is because the market is absolutely not a rationale actor, which itself should call into question many of the key assumptions made by the rabid free-marketers

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/networth.asp

And I know Cash isnt the only asset, thats literally what I have been saying .


Also that may be true for many other companies , but it isnt exactly true for Amazon. Much of the share price is based on speculation and if Bezos decides to sell his share of the company it would send a signal to the market that Amazon will not do nearly as well in the future as they think , and then the valuation of Amazon as a whole would plummet.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

Lies,  damned lies and statistics. You're playing semantic games, because you don't like the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

Lies,  damned lies and statistics. You're playing semantic games, because you don't like the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway the golden age for the US economy was between 1983-2001

[Deleted User #4049]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

Lies,  damned lies and statistics. You're playing semantic games, because you don't like the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was the top marginal rate. In reality, no one paid close to that much, because before the mid-80s (I forget the exact year the tax code was rewritten) there were FAR more loopholes and deductions than there are now. For example, real estate including houses was considered to depreciate to nothing over 27 years, so people could deduct the "depreciation" (lol) of their house from their taxes owed. This is just one of many, many examples.

[Big Abraham]

The system that allows billionaires to exist is capitalism, however Cortez seems content with the economic system as it is, save for a few reforms. Sad to see that she's just focused on moralising as usual

Wealth inequality isn’t even the primary problem; it’s a side effect. The primary problem is the inequality inherent to the power distribution within capitalism; a system wherein the mass appropriation of labor power, and the “profit” derived from capitalists not paying laborers the full value of their labor (calculated as value upon point of sale). It’s mass theft reinforced through a system of coercive contractual employment (sell your labor or don’t feed yourself/family). So long as the capitalist/proletariat or employee/employer relationship exists, then so, too, will entrenched inequality, a lack of democratic power in a more immediate part of your daily life than government (your job), no control over what you produce (alienation), and countless people being accused of moral failure to excuse the systemic failures of capitalism to meet basic human needs.

I agree with you. I was pointing out in my original post that, if Cortez's main issue is with "billionaires", she's (1) addressing the issue improperly, and (2) focused on morality politics. The only thing I must stress that it's one labour-power that is being sold, not labour itself. Otherwise, you understand the essentials of Marxian economics, something I wish could be said for others here.

[JA]

The system that allows billionaires to exist is capitalism, however Cortez seems content with the economic system as it is, save for a few reforms. Sad to see that she's just focused on moralising as usual

Wealth inequality isn’t even the primary problem; it’s a side effect. The primary problem is the inequality inherent to the power distribution within capitalism; a system wherein the mass appropriation of labor power, and the “profit” derived from capitalists not paying laborers the full value of their labor (calculated as value upon point of sale). It’s mass theft reinforced through a system of coercive contractual employment (sell your labor or don’t feed yourself/family). So long as the capitalist/proletariat or employee/employer relationship exists, then so, too, will entrenched inequality, a lack of democratic power in a more immediate part of your daily life than government (your job), no control over what you produce (alienation), and countless people being accused of moral failure to excuse the systemic failures of capitalism to meet basic human needs.

Does your view of labor include marketers, administrators, accountants, and other support staff such as janitors and shipping? (In the latter case, the shipping may itself be a productnpirvjsed from elsewhere) Do all receive equal pieces of the pie? Do you believe the mandate to split profits equally with any additional staff would discourage certain entrepreneurial figures? How does intellectual property factor into this?

Are they performing work without being an owner of the means of production? Is the monetary value they receive in exchange for a product or service, rather than something idle, such as collecting rents on owned property, deriving profits from surplus value from labor, speculation/investment, or interest charges? Then they’re a laborer; they’re a proletariat.

It’s not about receiving equal slices of anything, if you’re going by “what would occur in your socioeconomic system.” You’re still approaching it from a mindset confined to a capitalist mode of production. The question is: is their a social need for it? Do we need housing, food, transportation, janitorial services, accounting work, etc...? If the answer is yes, then those services are required and should be provided. If there is a need, then it should be met. And, whomever meets that need, should retain total control over their labor and the product thereof. If that need requires social labor (such as what can be produced more efficiently by 2+ persons), then the contracted parties should have equal say in their work. All decisions pertaining to labor, production, etc... should be democratically decided by those involved.

Lol You truly don’t understand even basic economics do you

Why? Because I don’t agree with you on capitalism? It’s a repugnant economic system that has inherent contradictions that make it incredibly unstable and socially (and environmentally) destructive. Prove me wrong.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

A system that allows billionaires who doesn't pay their employees enough to get by without food stamps to exist is definitively immoral.

It’s cute that OSR almost certainly believes he’s more likely to be rich like Bezos than living in his car, using food stamps, and slaving away full time for below a living wage.

Another one of temporarily embarrassed billionares.

[RFK Jr.’s Brain Worm]

Our country has a system where the President of the United States is ostensibly worth $3.1 billion dollars and yet there are dozens of homeless veterans sleeping on the streets two blocks from where he lives. If that's not the definition of a broken, immoral system, then I don't know what is.

However, to me that's not necessarily an argument for a Huey Long-esque maximum legal wealth and/or the overthrow of capitalism itself, it's an argument for much higher taxation of the rich, including making our income tax system a wealth tax, at least for the rich, and raising the capital gains tax, then using the new revenue to fund social programs to help the poor and working classes.

This. I don’t have problems with people being billionaires. I have problems with people being billionaires when their employees need pubic assistance to get by.

[Antonio the Sixth]

She’s correct, as always.

[Suburbia]

Yes, working people need to be paid more and have good wages, but banning innovation and success is communistic. This is why I made a thread about why people making more than $250,000+ a year should vote Democratic.

[Badger]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

Lies,  damned lies and statistics. You're playing semantic games, because you don't like the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway the golden age for the US economy was between 19893-2001

Corrected.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

Lies,  damned lies and statistics. You're playing semantic games, because you don't like the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway the golden age for the US economy was between 19893-2001

Corrected.

Other than 1990-92 , 93-01 was basically a continuation of the booming mid and late 80s and then Clinton basically continued supply side economics as President and in many ways expanded it beyond Reagan .

[Badger]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

Lies,  damned lies and statistics. You're playing semantic games, because you don't like the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway the golden age for the US economy was between 19893-2001

Corrected.

Other than 1990-92 , 93-01 was basically a continuation of the booming mid and late 80s and then Clinton basically continued supply side economics as President and in many ways expanded it beyond Reagan .

So your definition of supply-side economics includes a high income tax increase? Funny, I remember the time quite well and absolutely zero Republicans said anything but the exact opposite.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

Lies,  damned lies and statistics. You're playing semantic games, because you don't like the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway the golden age for the US economy was between 19893-2001

Corrected.

Other than 1990-92 , 93-01 was basically a continuation of the booming mid and late 80s and then Clinton basically continued supply side economics as President and in many ways expanded it beyond Reagan .

So your definition of supply-side economics includes a high income tax increase? Funny, I remember the time quite well and absolutely zero Republicans said anything but the exact opposite.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes , got more deregulation passed than Reagan and passed Welfare reform and cut spending in general .


Clinton yes increased income tax rate but Reagan increased the capital gains tax rate.

[Badger]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

Lies,  damned lies and statistics. You're playing semantic games, because you don't like the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway the golden age for the US economy was between 19893-2001

Corrected.

Other than 1990-92 , 93-01 was basically a continuation of the booming mid and late 80s and then Clinton basically continued supply side economics as President and in many ways expanded it beyond Reagan .

So your definition of supply-side economics includes a high income tax increase? Funny, I remember the time quite well and absolutely zero Republicans said anything but the exact opposite.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes , got more deregulation passed than Reagan and passed Welfare reform and cut spending in general .


Clinton yes increased income tax rate but Reagan increased the capital gains tax rate.

I really don't think you know what supply-side economics is. Clinton also increased social spending.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

Lies,  damned lies and statistics. You're playing semantic games, because you don't like the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway the golden age for the US economy was between 19893-2001

Corrected.

Other than 1990-92 , 93-01 was basically a continuation of the booming mid and late 80s and then Clinton basically continued supply side economics as President and in many ways expanded it beyond Reagan .

So your definition of supply-side economics includes a high income tax increase? Funny, I remember the time quite well and absolutely zero Republicans said anything but the exact opposite.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes , got more deregulation passed than Reagan and passed Welfare reform and cut spending in general .


Clinton yes increased income tax rate but Reagan increased the capital gains tax rate.

I really don't think you know what supply-side economics is. Clinton also increased social spending.

Clinton post 1994 economic policies were more conservative then Reagan’s.


Clinton cut the capital gains rate from 28% to 20% which reversed Reagan’s increase , expanded among his free trade policies, and deregulated more than Reagan did

[Badger]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

Lies,  damned lies and statistics. You're playing semantic games, because you don't like the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway the golden age for the US economy was between 19893-2001

Corrected.

Other than 1990-92 , 93-01 was basically a continuation of the booming mid and late 80s and then Clinton basically continued supply side economics as President and in many ways expanded it beyond Reagan .

So your definition of supply-side economics includes a high income tax increase? Funny, I remember the time quite well and absolutely zero Republicans said anything but the exact opposite.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes , got more deregulation passed than Reagan and passed Welfare reform and cut spending in general .


Clinton yes increased income tax rate but Reagan increased the capital gains tax rate.

I really don't think you know what supply-side economics is. Clinton also increased social spending.

Clinton post 1994 economic policies were more conservative then Reagan’s.


Clinton cut the capital gains rate from 28% to 20% which reversed Reagan’s increase , expanded among his free trade policies, and deregulated more than Reagan did

Just curious why Republicans literally unanimously decried is high income tax increase as an inevitable economy Destroyer? I mean, if Clinton really was the same as Reagan...