Alexandria ocasio Cortez is a breath of fresh air

[Pavlov]

Does anyone find it just a little odd that Amazon isn't even looking for a replacement for the LIC HQ after giving it up so quickly?

It's almost as if they were only going to build one new HQ in the first place....

[midnightpulp]

"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."

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

How does your tax change affect that because there only a slight difference currently. Also we live in a more global economy now. Therefore a high tax rate would logically hurt us more than the 50s. But hanging to them misleading and irrelevant 50s.

Universal healthcare doesn't work with illegals, birthright, and for damn sure without the borders that Dem want to get rid of.

Plus Europe is not working. They are declining even with the US paying for their military.

"Last week offered fresh evidence that the most consequential historical shift of the last 100 years continues: the decline of Europe as a force in world affairs. As Deutsche Bank warned of a German recession, the European Commission cut the 2019 eurozone growth forecast from an already anemic 1.9% to 1.3%. Economic output in the eurozone was lower in 2017 than it was in 2009; over that same period, gross domestic product grew 139% in China, 96% in India, and 34% in the U.S., according to the World Bank."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/incredi....co/UYoF29R8OR

The tax loopholes the then rich used to get out of paying that tax rate doesn't discount the validity or morality of the idea. Also, from that article, fewer than 10000 households made enough money to fit in that bracket, so obviously being the "1 percent" didn't necessarily mean you were filthy rich. In today's economic climate, we have people worth over 50 billion dollars. Also, the whole scare tactic of "well, the rich will just move!" doesn't fly because if the rich just moved, they would lose proximity to the largest consumer market in the world. Walmart just can't pack up their thousands of stores and move them to China or Europe, which are less flourishing consumer markets. Nor would they want to. Same with Amazon.

Don't know what the EU failing as an experiment has to do with the efficacy of their healthcare model?

[CosmicCowboy]

Does anyone find it just a little odd that Amazon isn't even looking for a replacement for the LIC HQ after giving it up so quickly?

It's almost as if they were only going to build one new HQ in the first place....

It's my understanding they will fill the gap with Nashville.

[Will Hunting]

The tax loopholes the then rich used to get out of paying that tax rate doesn't discount the validity or morality of the idea. Also, from that article, fewer than 10000 households made enough money to fit in that bracket, so obviously being the "1 percent" didn't necessarily mean you were filthy rich. In today's economic climate, we have people worth over 50 billion dollars. Also, the whole scare tactic of "well, the rich will just move!" doesn't fly because if the rich just moved, they would lose proximity to the largest consumer market in the world. Walmart just can't pack up their thousands of stores and move them to China or Europe, which are less flourishing consumer markets. Nor would they want to. Same with Amazon.

Don't know what the EU failing as an experiment has to do with the efficacy of their healthcare model?

Exactly, the biggest tax “loophole” used in the 50s was making less money since money earned in the top bracket was going to be the government’s money. There wasn’t a class of oligarchs at the time with more wealth than the bottom 70% of the country. The result was a much stronger middle class that created the consumer demand needed for a good economy that wasn’t fueled by bubbles the way the post-Reagan American economy is fueled.

[ducks]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is destroying opportunity for fellow Democrats


https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost....democrats/amp/

[Pavlov]

It's my understanding they will fill the gap with Nashville.

5000 instead of 25000 employees? Or are they talking about another new deal?

[midnightpulp]

Online shopping is extremely "green". You don't like that?

I don't see how that's possible. To buy a widget from a brick-and-mortar, the transportation chain involved might look like: shipped to distribution hub, shipped to store, I drive (less distance than the typical Amazon warehouse is to me and in a more fuel efficient vehicle) to buy. Online retail model: Shipped to distribution hub, shipped to fulfillment center, delivered to me. Then you add in the additional packaging online retail requires.

However, with e-commerce, every retailer is expected to deliver directly to its customers. The order size is one product instead of thousands, with smaller packages and faster delivery. On top of this, the internet provides 24x7 availability, which compounds this supply chain even further.

As a result, vehicle footprint increases, leading to increased carbon emissions, air pollution and generally detrimental to health. The increased emissions also affect climate change.

https://www.varsity.co.uk/science/9086

[baseline bum]

I like how all of rmt’s views are determined by anecdotal evidence involving things like stories she hears at the Jamaican immigrant joy luck club.

WC did the same .

[Nathan89]

The tax loopholes the then rich used to get out of paying that tax rate doesn't discount the validity or morality of the idea. Also, from that article, fewer than 10000 households made enough money to fit in that bracket, so obviously being the "1 percent" didn't necessarily mean you were filthy rich. In today's economic climate, we have people worth over 50 billion dollars. Also, the whole scare tactic of "well, the rich will just move!" doesn't fly because if the rich just moved, they would lose proximity to the largest consumer market in the world. Walmart just can't pack up their thousands of stores and move them to China or Europe, which are less flourishing consumer markets. Nor would they want to. Same with Amazon.

Don't know what the EU failing as an experiment has to do with the efficacy of their healthcare model?

So now you recognize the 50s is irrelevant. You use the 50s as the standard of this tax rate working but highlight the limited amount of people that this actually affected.

The tax loopholes are relevant when you point tio the 50s as evidence high tax rate is successful.

We have have people that earn 50 billion. Most of the mega rich end up donating their wealth. Plus focusing on the mega rich ignores the fact that the upper middle class is growing and the poorest class is shrinking.

No Walmart can't move their stores. The rich can move. High taxes can also discourage successful people from bringing their talents to the US. The largest consumer market in the world wasn't built with punishing taxes. Innovation isn't the fruit of the tree of taxes that punish success.

EU welfare states failing despite living off the US has some relevance to a comment clamouring about high taxes and free healthcare.

[koriwhat]

Think it's just an expansion of its operations center. Don't have the specifics ATM.

yeah i heard about this like half a yr ago but haven't heard anything since.

So you admitted you paid money for a worthless degree? Thanks

bachelors definitely aren’t worthless. A lot of places require bachelors degrees, it really doesn’t matter the field. They just generally require a bachelors. Obviously some degrees are better than other such as CS, EE, ME etc

financial aid is a of a thing ya know? actually i paid half and i got the degree for my mother, not myself. i feel like it was a waste of time tbh but whatever; i love my mother so yeah.

either way, show me where a degree would help me in the field i am in. i'll wait...

[boutons_deux]

RW Evangelicals: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a Witch or Controlled by Demons

RW evangelicals who have been spewing some really insane crap through their media. The attacks have have increased on AOC since she began talking about the Green New Deal , which RW evangelicals believe is demonically inspired, because Socialism.

Intercessors for America president, Dave Kubal, after conducting an interview with Republican Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia during a monthly prayer call, went on a delusional rant about witches in the heart of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's District:

“It’s been

widely publicized that there is a coven of witches that cast spells on President Trump 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

This particular coven is found in the southern portion of New York City.

He added that the southern portion of New York City also happens to be where the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sits,

which is where the case involving Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, was overseen by Judge Kimba Wood.

Kubal then noted that Wood had officiated the wedding of George Soros in 2013,

and that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in attendance at the service. So, right in the middle of all of this, the southern district, in the middle of where these witches are doing the 24/7 spell-casting,

we find the territory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” Kubal added. “Her district is in the center of all of this going on."

the political agenda promoted by elected officials like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders is “of the devil.

“It is God’s fight, folks.

This is not our fight, this is his fight.

He wants America free.

He doesn’t want it under the bonds of socialism and communism.

He wants men to be free to worship God. That’s Satan’s theology,” he continued.

“Bernie’s theology is of the devil.

Ocasio-Cortez’s theology is of Satan …

This is a spiritual war, folks.”

he declared that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has “demonic connections” and is doing the bidding of “the demonic realm.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...paign=trending

[CosmicCowboy]

Dudes almost as crazy as Boutons.

[midnightpulp]

So now you recognize the 50s is irrelevant. You use the 50s as the standard of this tax rate working but highlight the limited amount of people that this actually affected.

The tax loopholes are relevant when you point tio the 50s as evidence high tax rate is successful.

We have have people that earn 50 billion. Most of the mega rich end up donating their wealth. Plus focusing on the mega rich ignores the fact that the upper middle class is growing and the poorest class is shrinking.

No Walmart can't move their stores. The rich can move. High taxes can also discourage successful people from bringing their talents to the US. The largest consumer market in the world wasn't built with punishing taxes. Innovation isn't the fruit of the tree of taxes that punish success.

EU welfare states failing despite living off the US has some relevance to a comment clamouring about high taxes and free healthcare.

No, the highest earners still paid significantly more than 37% in the taxes in the 50s, just that weren't as many high earners (>200K) back then. The gap between the 1% and the 99% was a lot closer. And even still, according to your link, the 1% still paid 42% in taxes vs. 36% today. This isn't merely a 6% difference. It's about a 19% difference. And the top .1 percent paid 50% in taxes, which is a 26% difference. The top .01 55%, which is a 36% difference. This is by no means "small." So, the 1950s tax structure isn't irrelevant.

Who are all these multibillionaire oligarchs that have donated their wealth to charity? The only people who've put their money where there mouth is are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Paul Allen was the most recent billionaire to pass, and (googling), I don't see any plans for his estate to wind up in the hands of a charity. But let's look and see how much these generous, brilliant, self-made men donate to charity:


Jeff Bezos: 0.1 percent.
Charles Koch: 1.5 percent
Larry Ellison: 2.4 percent
Mark Zuckerberg: 2.9 percent
David Koch: 3.0 percent
Larry Page: 4.0 percent
Sergey Brin: 5.9 percent
Michael Bloomberg: 10.2 percent
Bill Gates: 22.2 percent
Warren Buffer: 71.1 percent

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/59d5.../#7d364f495dae

The national average is about 3%. The bottom 7 conform to that average, with the top 3 being the only outliers. A study also found that lower income people give more of a percentage to charity than higher income: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Up...lthy-pull-back

The rich can't move their on paper profits from their stateside businesses. I wrote about this concern in a previous thread:

Anyhow, I think the American masses hold more cards here vis a vis the proposed tax increases on the rich since we, collectively, are by far the biggest consumer market in the world. I don't think the threat of, "Well, if you excessively tax Bezos et al, they'll just close up shop and move to Hong Kong" has a realistic chance of happening because no way would they want to lose access to this market. We're talking a consumer market almost the size of China and the EU combined. Americans aren't going to wait 2 weeks for a delivery from Amazon fulfillment centers in Hong Kong. "Well, maybe Bezos cuts a deal with Mexico or Canada?" Still a comparatively long shipping time. Some compe or will just take the 70% or whatever marginal tax hit and replicate Amazon's business model domestically, undercutting Bezos. This basically means while Amazon corporate HQ might be located off-shore to avoid paying taxes, Amazon would have no choice but to have a US headquarters (which would be the biggest Amazon arm) that would have to pay taxes regardless.

Same logic applies to Walmart, McDonalds, Apple, Microsoft, etc. You can say, "Well, every time a corporation sees a drop in revenue, which a 70% tax rate would definitely cause, they counter by cutting labor costs through layoffs and outsourcing." There will come a point where that tactic backfires since if you strangle the average American's purchasing power to that extent, it translates into reduced consumerism, meaning reduced profits. You can look at the data and see that the rising tide that truly lifts all boats is when the average American has more disposable income.

We can look at the different income tax rates between states as evidence. California has the highest in the country, Texas has none, yet I don't see Silicon Valley packing up and moving to Texas. You'll probably bring up the meme of all the Californians moving to Texas frustrated with our "commie state," but boiled down, California's GDP growth was 3.0 percent in 2016-2017 to Texas' 2.6, and from 2013-2016 (this was the supposed peak of California to Texas migration) California ranked number 1 in GDP growth.

"Middle-class moving into upper class." Referring to that graph in your sig? We can arbitrarily define what is middle, lower, poor class all we want, but the cold hard fact is that the national median income average is about 60K. If median income growth kept pace with inflation over the last 40 years, the median average should be about 90K. Culprit? Tax Cuts. In 1979 the inflation adjusted median family income was 48,000. At the end of St. Ronne's tenure, it was about 51,000. See this inflation adjusted graph and how the Reagan tax cuts killed the trajectory:

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/...mpS7NqvlaRY%3D

Inflation adjusted median income graph from 2000-2018 (that dip following 2000? Bush tax cuts):



No real wage growth. Trust me, I used to lean way more libertarian, but the facts tell me that isn't a valid economic philosophy to have right now. It doesn't "trickle down."

[Nathan89]

So one of your graphs show income adjusted for inflation is pretty constant for the last 18 years. National emergency.

Your other premise is that everything is broken because income didn't continue to rise at the same rate as it did following ww2. You that was going to continue forever? Nothing in America has changed but Reagan tax cuts.

"For Every 10% Increase in Women Working, We See a 5% Increase in Wages"

"In the U.S., women’s participation in the labor market has nearly doubled, from 34% of working age women (age 16 and older) in the labor force in 1950 to almost 57% in 2016. When it passed 50% in 1978, working women became the norm."

https://hbr.org/2018/01/when-more-wo...luding-for-men

This study for instance points towards more women working increasing wages. Notice the significant increase from 1950 to 1978 but only a slight increase since? Just in time for you rap it all up and point towards tax cuts? Huh, I wonder if there are other factors you are overlooking.

[Nathan89]

"By 1911, Carnegie had given away a huge amount of money -- 90 percent of his fortune."

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/ca...il_3.htmlndrew

Carnegie and Rockefeller donated significant sums of wealth. Just 87 years after Rockefeller died his 100s of billions has been reduced to 10 billion across his large family. 3 billion being tied up by 1 individual who was CEO of a bank.

Gates plan on donating virtually all of his money.

Most of Bezos wealth is tied up in Amazon. It seems he plans on using his wealth to invest in space. So ultimately another big plus for society.

[Winehole23]

You're not wrong to single out the Rockefellers as socially responsible and public minded stewards of wealth, but did you notice the recent (last 30-40 year) trend of reconsolidation? The Seven Sisters have been merging back together.

100 years on, the energy trust is substantially back together. John D. foresaw this.

Remind me to reread AN.

[Winehole23]

John D.'s railway and tanker car monopolies were key to his advantage over compeitors.

[Winehole23]

His original fortune was made selling groceries in the Civil War. He offered his partner a share in his oil business, but his partner couldn't see any future in it and declined the ground floor invitation.

[Winehole23]

John D Rockefeller was an addicted golfer who couldn't stand to lose a new ball in the water even though he was by then the richest man in the world. Would take out an old ball when he had a water hazard in front of him.

[Winehole23]

"By 1911, Carnegie had given away a huge amount of money -- 90 percent of his fortune."

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/ca...il_3.htmlndrew

Carnegie and Rockefeller donated significant sums of wealth. Just 87 years after Rockefeller died his 100s of billions has been reduced to 10 billion across his large family. 3 billion being tied up by 1 individual who was CEO of a bank.

Gates plan on donating virtually all of his money.

Most of Bezos wealth is tied up in Amazon. It seems he plans on using his wealth to invest in space. So ultimately another big plus for society.

eh, we're see about Bezos.

Comparatively he's a skinflint.

[rmt]

I like how all of rmt’s views are determined by anecdotal evidence involving things like stories she hears at the Jamaican immigrant joy luck club.

You mean, from real life? Instead of the internet bubble of some. Pardon me if I believe things (like the expansion of Amazon into Medicare prescriptions) I hear from real live people instead of "news" (fake or not) posted on the internet. I'm off to a friend's mom's 90th birthday today - so more of that Jamaican gossip that bores you so. Cheesecake or chocolate dessert? Hmmm.

[rmt]

eh, we're see about Bezos.

Comparatively he's a skinflint.

IMO, Bezos is not like say Google - it's all about domination for him, spreading those ever wide tentacles. Google wasted their big advantage earlier doing more "pie in the sky" stuff - like worldwide internet access for the good of humanity. Amazon just kept chugging along, operating at a loss and infiltrating every possible area it could. I remember back in the day when Amazon was only a book seller - I would buy old textbooks (I actually still have complete sets [student and teacher editions and solution manuals] of all of Dolciani's math texts from Algebra 1 thru Pre-Calc) and re-sell other books when finished with them. Shucks - more anecdotes - there is always putting me on ignore :-)

[midnightpulp]

So one of your graphs show income adjusted for inflation is pretty constant for the last 18 years. National emergency.

Your other premise is that everything is broken because income didn't continue to rise at the same rate as it did following ww2. You that was going to continue forever? Nothing in America has changed but Reagan tax cuts.

"For Every 10% Increase in Women Working, We See a 5% Increase in Wages"

"In the U.S., women’s participation in the labor market has nearly doubled, from 34% of working age women (age 16 and older) in the labor force in 1950 to almost 57% in 2016. When it passed 50% in 1978, working women became the norm."

https://hbr.org/2018/01/when-more-wo...luding-for-men

This study for instance points towards more women working increasing wages. Notice the significant increase from 1950 to 1978 but only a slight increase since? Just in time for you rap it all up and point towards tax cuts? Huh, I wonder if there are other factors you are overlooking.

Okay, then we'll look at GDP per capita with considers per person wealth growth:



Red line is the overall GDP per capita growth in the United States. Look how up until 1980 all the income groups grew together at an almost identical rate. Then post-1980, the growth for the wealthiest much outpaced the bottom 90%. That was the beginning of the Reagan tax cuts, obviously, but some other key events and business philosophies took hold over this time, namely the SEC under the Reagan administration making stock buybacks legal and the shareholder primacy concept.

When a big corporation receives a generous tax cut, they don't allow it to "trickle down," they use it to buyback stock, which gives a boost to share price. Quick reads on this practice: http://money.com/money/5267940/compa...tock-buybacks/, https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/.../#33c060556b1e

For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed.

Big corporations operate on the philosophy of shareholder primacy. Their main concern isn't jobs, ethical business practices, social betterment, but making as much money for their shareholders as they can, which they are bound by law to do. Labor costs tend to be pesky to the bottom line, which is why corporations try to short-change labor anyway they can. https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterge.../#36a81e573304

I would maybe warm up to economic libertarianism again if stock buybacks were made illegal and corporations started acting more ethical (the latter is a pipedream, though). Warren, Sanders, Cortez's message resonates for a reason, and it's not out of "envy of the rich," like the right wing talking heads claim. When you have a single person growing their net worth by 100 billion over a decade, while the blue collar and even white collar workers in that guy's company are only seeing wage growth barely keeping pace with inflation or negative wage growth, it pisses people off.

[rmt]

so you’re talking about this and had no ing clue where the HQ was actually located? ing re

Does one really need to know? For me, Amazon/25k jobs vs Dems and their politicians in NYC area (you may subs ute any [VERY] Democratic stronghold for NYC area). Never thought I'd see the day when I actually feel sorry for Cuomo (especially after that disgusting abortion bill) but maybe what goes around, comes around.

You don't have to listen to my stupidity - put me on ignore.

[midnightpulp]

Does one really need to know? For me, Amazon/25k jobs vs Dems and their politicians in NYC area (you may subs ute any [VERY] Democratic stronghold for NYC area). Never thought I'd see the day when I actually feel sorry for Cuomo (especially after that disgusting abortion bill) but maybe what goes around, comes around.

You don't have to listen to my stupidity - put me on ignore.

Yes. You should be familiar with the particulars of the situation instead of just having the simplistic opinion of "big business bring jerbs=gud." I've explained to you and others that I've seen similar situations as these play out in California, a densely populated state with a variety of living options, where the company's new existence didn't play out like it theoretically should have.