AOC believes a system that allows Billionaires to exist is immoral

[Badger]

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.

Regarding the original post, although osr tends to be one of the more honest blue avatars around here, I'm going to ask for a second opinion without reading the article myself because I'm stopped at a light, is this an accurate summary of what AOC said? As in she genuinely thinks allowing billionaires to exist his immoral in and of itself?

[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.

[Badger]

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.

Regarding the original post, although osr tends to be one of the more honest blue avatars around here, I'm going to ask for a second opinion without reading the article myself because I'm stopped at a light, is this an accurate summary of what AOC said? As in she genuinely thinks allowing billionaires to exist his immoral in and of itself?

Just review the article. I won't ding osr as being dishonest, because he is quoting primarily from the Articles title. However, the hill really did not provide an accurate headline of her statement at all.

Down below the headline it actually quotes what she said on Late Night with Stephen Colbert. She said I think it is immoral to have a system work billionaires exist while there are people in Alabama still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health. She's right! And furthermore, she did not in any manner shape or form say that billionaires should not be allowed to exist. She further stated she doesn't leave all billionaires are immoral.

So in sum, she made the same point that most posters here did, including even old school Republican, that our economy's current overwhelming and growing inequality of wealth is immoral.

Screw The Hill. I know they're not exactly top-notch journalism to begin with, but that type of headline is straight out Fox News level misleading.

[Badger]

Michael Bloomberg has done more to make the world a better place than any US government in the last century.

Citation desperately needed

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...