Reply With Quote
"socializing the means of production, under the control of a workers’ state, might be a more technocratically efficacious means"
Wtf is this horse
Earlier this month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went on national television and said that the United States should tax incomes above $10 million at a 70 percent rate.
In response, some centrist pundits pronounced the Democratic Party dead by political suicide: National Journalreporter Josh Kraushaar argued that, while congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s profane call for Trump’s impeachment was getting more attention, Ocasio-Cortez “calling for a 70 percent tax rate on the nation’s most-watched news show a whole lot more politically damaging for Ds.”
There was never much evidence for this assessment. In public opinion polls, raising taxes on the rich consistently ranks as one of the most popular ideas in American politics. Moreover, political-science research suggests that the American people’s resentment of the wealthy is bitter and deep — and, in the not-too-distant past, Democrats succeeded in leveraging such resentment for political gain.
Meanwhile, as far as plans for class war go, Ocasio-Cortez’s was more “Jimmy Carter” than “Jacobin.” As recently as 1980, the U.S. taxed all incomes above $216,000 (or $658,213 in today’s dollars) at 70 percent rate. And recent research on optimal taxation has suggested that the ideal top marginal rate might be closer to 80 percent.
These facts led certain bloggers to describe the congresswoman’s idea as a “moderate policy.” And now, a new poll has confirmed that such bloggers are, in fact, profoundly wise.
Over the weekend, pollsters from the Hill–HarrisX asked voters, “Would you favor or oppose a tax proposal that would apply a 70% rate to the 10 millionth dollar and beyond for individuals making $10 million a year or more in reportable income?” — and 59 percent said yes.
The idea was “popular in all regions of the country.” Southerners backed it by a 57-to-43 percent margin, while 56 percent of voters in rural zip codes agreed that the socialist congresswoman was onto something. Even 45 percent of self-identified Republicans approved.
There are reasonable critiques of Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan (raising taxes on capital gains might be a more effective way of soaking the superrich; a confiscatory top marginal rate might prove impotent, absent a global war on tax havens; socializing the means of production, under the control of a workers’ state, might be a more technocratically efficacious means of reducing America’s Gini coefficient). But the notion that it’s “politically damaging for Ds” ain’t one.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...mpression=true
"socializing the means of production, under the control of a workers’ state, might be a more technocratically efficacious means"
Wtf is this horse
Lmao Karl Marx "means of production seized by the workers" bull in 2019 for christ sakes
Idk I'm still trying to figure that part out
socializing is nationalization, which is what should have been done to bankrupt banks in 2009.
... just the oppsite of privatization, which is Capitalists taking over public organizations to crapify them and charge more
I support it
Although I might change my mind if I make over 10 mill tbqh
it lets make it 30 mill and I support it 100% niga
Do it
This is where the AOC goes off the rails.
I fully support significantly higher taxes for the ultra rich (and by ultra rich I don’t mean small business owners who eak out a few million a year in hard earned income), but the talks of completely nationalizing the “means of production” is when you’re crossing over into full blown communism and completely disincentivizing innovation & growth.
The article is correct that raising the cap gains tax to match up with regular income would be a more effective approach though if you’re trying to target the super rich.
I also don’t understand why people are so against the estate tax. It’s a lot more fair to be taxing the fortune some rich asshole inherits and didn’t earn than it is to tax the person who actually earned the money.
Last edited by Will Hunting; 01-22-2019 at 09:31 AM.
Some of you aces that are obsessed with AOC ...
where does she say that Labor should capture the means of production? or that (which?) companies should nationalized?
Capitalism SUCKS, is deeply anti-democratic, anti-nature, anti-human, is pure fascist authoritarianism
The other 40% similar to the (R)e s om this board probably don’t understand how a marginal tax rate works tbh
I think this is actually what the other 40% consists of:
Tbh AOC didn't say it the author of the article said it..and then I think boutons in this thread said it but who reads his posts anyway
I don't want damn gubmint taking 70% of muh power ball winningsI think this is actually what the other 40% consists of:
Tax all thosein American sports
Yeah you're totally not racistTax all those
They're one of the most heavily taxed groups as it stands, so that's an incoherent comment.Tax all those
They pay a higher rate because their earnings are condensed into a ~10 year stretch, and their taxes are on gross wages rather than wages after they're done paying their agents & lawyers.
This is why Republican messaging depends on people not understanding marginal tax rates.
I think 70% is too high an immediate jump, fwiw. But it could be worked up to. The previous highs didn't get cut down completely, they were shaved off over time.
evidently that's a remarkably safe bet
I support societal pressure against companies overpaying execs while laborers do the heavy lifting.
Who cares. Let's poll it and see if 60% of Americans support it.
Particularly when you control the messaging to a significant chunk of the audience.
MORE THAN AN ATHLETE
Whether it's my 1000th dollar, my 10000th dollar, ..... or my 100 millionth dollar, I would not be risking it if I had to pay 70% tax - not worth the risk.
Good thing this aint two weeks ago because your erstwhile bernie bro ass would be sucking this authors tbh
the author imagining criticism of AOC from the left -- she's not socialist enough.
Not worth what risk? You’re going to tell me that the after tax returns with a 70% marginal rate for individual income (not corporation income, that would be a different story, were only talking about how the money is taxed once it’s distributed to individuals) over $10mm would make it so no investments worth the risk would exist? That seems like stretch.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
