Ann Coulter Tweets in Favor of AOC 70% TMR

[tinselwolverine]

AC@AOC

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM

 

[tinselwolverine]

Coulter on Maher 1/25/19

 

[sggatecl]

I loathe her opinion on the wall but at least she sticks to her guns. She's got more balls than half of Congress who have Trump's balls on their chin daily.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't know; I mean I like what she's saying now, but I don't think she's saying it out of any true political conviction. I think she knows which way the wind is blowing, and what will get her positive buzz.


But I do agree the marginal rate should be at least 70%; it should never have been lowered from that.

 

[sggatecl]

But I do agree the marginal rate should be at least 70%; it should never have been lowered from that.

Compared to what it is now, how significant of a difference would it be? What would it change? I've heard the trickle down, job creation side of the argument in detail from family, but not much of the Bernie/AOC side specifically.

 

[Michchamp]

Compared to what it is now, how significant of a difference would it be? What would it change? I've heard the trickle down, job creation side of the argument in detail from family, but not much of the Bernie/AOC side specifically.

It would change a lot.

off the top of my head, there are lot of benefits to society when you tax income and wealth more heavily. I guess it goes without saying that after my 12 years working in corporate America, I do not see compensation correlated with competence or work ethic, and so I don't see taking another chunk out of income over $500K or $600K if married would actually hurt productivity. 99.9999% of CEOs and bootlickers that serve them disagree with me on that... so maybe check to get their unbiased opinion on that...

Nor do I buy the idea that the private sector is any more efficient at delivering returns on investment, or efficiently allocating resources than the public sector. People disagree with me!

When you increase marginal tax rates, money goes from being characterized as compensation and merely sitting in rich peoples' bank/retirement accounts to being paid in other ways, like perks and work benefits that actually get pumped back into the economy and employ people. This is how it was in the 70's-80's...
if executives have less interest in hoarding cash because it's now taxed at higher rates, they spend it. they hire more people!

Plus, the increased revenue can go to fund actual domestic programs and infrastructure (uh... assuming it's not simply being looted right from the treasury by these guys).

finally, another added benefit is that billionaires have less clout over the rest of us, because they'll have less pocket change to throw at politicians through Dark Money super pacs. One person, one vote!

 

[Michchamp]

It's amazing how ignorant people are about tax policy.

and the media helps intentionally confuse that.

but if you put the highest MARGINAL rate (which for the avoidance of doubt, less than 1,000,000 American households pay, out of 137,600,000 total households) in context, it only affects a portion of income fewer than 1% of people even pay.

I've still seen idiots screaming that AOC is proposing a 70% income tax rate.

to put it in historical context, the highest marginal rate was over 70% from 1918-1921, then cut dramatically until it was 25% from 1925-1931. Yay, Great Depression time.

Then it went back to 63% in 1932. in 1936 it went to 79%, and didn't drop below 70% again until 1980.

Note, during all these years, the economy was growing and real wages for all Americans grew as well. Real wages basically uncoupled from growth in 1980, when President B Movie Actor cut taxes for his rich Hollywood buddies.

Also for those really worried that if we raise taxes again rich people won't be able to buy yachts and 4th homes, relax. They still owned yachts during all those years. And I know only being able to afford three homes sounds harsh, but trust me, everyone was okay from 1936-1980. Things were better for everyone.

 

[tomdalton22]

I say get rid of the standard deduction and child tax credits. Taxes start at 10% and the top rate is 49%. Let everybody contribute.

 

[Michchamp]

I say get rid of the standard deduction and child tax credits. Taxes start at 10% and the top rate is 49%. Let everybody contribute.

problem is, every dollar of income isn't the same. up to a certain amount is money people need to live on. and so standard deductions exist for that, and for poor couples with kids.

That $30,000th dollar is still paying for living expenses. The $150,000th isn't. or if it is, it's paying for an unnecessarily large house...

 

[tomdalton22]

problem is, every dollar of income isn't the same. up to a certain amount is money people need to live on. and so standard deductions exist for that, and for poor couples with kids.

That $30,000th dollar is still paying for living expenses. The $150,000th isn't. or if it is, it's paying for an unnecessarily large house...

I understand that...but those are the breaks. I'm tired of the deadbeats at the bottom not kicking in anything. I have a sister in law that doesn't work and she gets a nice tax refund every year. Seems odd...get a return when you don't put in a dime.

The problem isn't the rich people who only pay 40%...it's all of the deadbeats we have in this country that don't contribute anything.

I'd be fine with increasing the tax rate towards the top. Hell, start it at $150K, but get rid of the child tax credits and make everyone pay a little.

 

[Gulo Blue]

problem is, every dollar of income isn't the same. up to a certain amount is money people need to live on. and so standard deductions exist for that, and for poor couples with kids.

That $30,000th dollar is still paying for living expenses. The $150,000th isn't. or if it is, it's paying for an unnecessarily large house...

Not only that, but you can do $30k or $100k of work with your own hands, but things get more complication once you start doing things involving more people and resources. Once you are earning millions, while it's difficult to quantify, your benefit from public services is greater and your reliance on them is greater with regard to your ability to earn and keep your wealth.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I understand that...but those are the breaks. I'm tired of the deadbeats at the bottom not kicking in anything. I have a sister in law that doesn't work and she gets a nice tax refund every year. Seems odd...get a return when you don't put in a dime.

The problem isn't the rich people who only pay 40%...it's all of the deadbeats we have in this country that don't contribute anything.

I'd be fine with increasing the tax rate towards the top. Hell, start it at $150K, but get rid of the child tax credits and make everyone pay a little.

Automation is killing the need for labor though. A single person can find a job, but all the deadbeats? What are they supposed to do and who is going to pay them?

 

[Michchamp]

I understand that...but those are the breaks. I'm tired of the deadbeats at the bottom not kicking in anything. I have a sister in law that doesn't work and she gets a nice tax refund every year. Seems odd...get a return when you don't put in a dime.

The problem isn't the rich people who only pay 40%...it's all of the deadbeats we have in this country that don't contribute anything.

I'd be fine with increasing the tax rate towards the top. Hell, start it at $150K, but get rid of the child tax credits and make everyone pay a little.

sorry to hear you have a deadbeat sister-in-law, Tom, but we have to stop governing based on anecdotal evidence. It's what got us into this mess.

 

[Michchamp]

It would be nicer at Thanksgiving (for everyone) if after ranting about the union guy he knows who sleeps on the job, but has a nice car and a cottage up north (THE HORROR!) a black guy he knows who commits crimes, some Mexican he heard about that swam across the Rio Grande and then raped a girl (a WALL would've kept him out!), and his niece/nephew that just collects welfare checks all day and has an iphone, your Fox News uncle added:

"I just wanted to complain about all these things. I have no idea if they're true or not, and certainly am not trying to influence anyone's way of thinking based on anecdotal evidence. Please show me actual studies that collect and analyze statistics on crime, labor participation, unions and productivity, and other related areas I may not be aware of that come into play here. I am openminded and want to learn."​

 

[tinselwolverine]

I say get rid of the standard deduction and child tax credits. Taxes start at 10% and the top rate is 49%. Let everybody contribute.

49% was about the top marginal rate average during the Reagan years.

 

[sggatecl]

I understand that...but those are the breaks. I'm tired of the deadbeats at the bottom not kicking in anything. I have a sister in law that doesn't work and she gets a nice tax refund every year. Seems odd...get a return when you don't put in a dime.

The problem isn't the rich people who only pay 40%...it's all of the deadbeats we have in this country that don't contribute anything.

I'd be fine with increasing the tax rate towards the top. Hell, start it at $150K, but get rid of the child tax credits and make everyone pay a little.

As someone that came from the bottom, my anecdotal experience is that the 'deadbeats' are outnumbered by the people that are actually trying. You're going to punish and cripple a lot of people that are trying to make something of themselves.

 

[Gulo Blue]

As someone that came from the bottom, my anecdotal experience is that the 'deadbeats' are outnumbered by the people that are actually trying. You're going to punish and cripple a lot of people that are trying to make something of themselves.

We're talking about people making more than like $400-500k, right?


Maybe punish, but not cripple. And these days, there are fewer people making it from the bottom to the upper income ranges than there used to be.

 

[Michchamp]

Whenever I hear "trickle down benefits" in the context of taxes and economics, I imagine poor people standing under a rich guy's window while he pees on them, and Ronald Reagan & Arthur Laffer stand nearby and nod in approval.

I hope all of you start to imagine the same thing, or at least something similar, when you hear the phrase now.

 

[sggatecl]

We're talking about people making more than like $400-500k, right?

Maybe punish, but not cripple.

That wasn't the impression I got from the post I responded to below:

I understand that...but those are the breaks. I'm tired of the deadbeats at the bottom not kicking in anything. I have a sister in law that doesn't work and she gets a nice tax refund every year. Seems odd...get a return when you don't put in a dime.

The problem isn't the rich people who only pay 40%...it's all of the deadbeats we have in this country that don't contribute anything.

I'd be fine with increasing the tax rate towards the top. Hell, start it at $150K, but get rid of the child tax credits and make everyone pay a little.

 

[sggatecl]

And these days, there are fewer people making it from the bottom to the upper income ranges than there used to be.

Are there? I lived in a car for two years before age 5 and another 1.5 years in high school. I might not be 'upper income' but I own a house, a car, and contribute to savings regularly.

I have several friends that I grew up with in similiar situations and they're in the same boat. I hate to think where we'd have all ended up if our parents were denied the assistance that contributed to us becoming what we are today.