- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Little Miss Tippie Top Ocasio-Cortez wants to raise taxes to 70% to pay for some socialist
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:08 am to beerJeep
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:08 am to beerJeep
quote:
Well, there is a marked increase in single parent households and out of wedlock childbirth in minorities from the 60s onwards.
Would you say that whatever rule change happened to cause this was a “good rule change” or a “bad rule change”
It was a good rule change. It ended poverty.
1
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:10 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
Just the one's that I support
FIFY
Like taking other people money.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:11 am to superwolf
...and then to 90%, then to 95%.
Then they will be shocked when no one does anything past a certain point because, what's the use?
Or, rich people vote with their feet and move their money out of your reach.
I've seen them do it.
Then they will be shocked when no one does anything past a certain point because, what's the use?
Or, rich people vote with their feet and move their money out of your reach.
I've seen them do it.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:13 am to superwolf
What does her ideal federal government NEED more money for?
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:14 am to superwolf
It is never just the top earners. It would funnel down and rest firmly on the middle class as another entitlement cannot be sustained based on skewed projections by the crazy left.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:16 am to superwolf
quote:
wants to raise taxes to 70%
This is why I own guns. The government will kill me and take it before I give them more of my hard earned money willfully.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:16 am to Ace Midnight
You mean people want to keep more of their money rather than throw it into a black hole where they get no return on their money?
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:17 am to Centinel
quote:
It was a good rule change. It ended poverty
Wut
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:18 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
What does her ideal federal government NEED more money for?
More government.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:23 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
boogiewoogie1978
Pussy
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:24 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
...and then to 90%, then to 95%.
Then they will be shocked when no one does anything past a certain point because, what's the use?
Or, rich people vote with their feet and move their money out of your reach.
I've seen them do it.
The math is pretty straightforward on this, and the hard left will never let it slip:
- The great bulk of taxable income is still in the middle three quintiles in America
- Raising the top end rates up to confiscatory levels (say 70+% for the highest brackets) would barely put a dent in the cost of their proposed programs (Medicare for All, free university, etc.)
- To realistically fund these initiatives, you'd have to have a ~20% or so absolute jump in effective rates for the middle classes on top of a VAT (probably 5 - 15%)
Saying anything else is just lying. "Tax the rich!" only gets you a small part of the way there.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:36 am to AbuTheMonkey
I think I remember seeing something like you could tax the 1% (maybe 5%, can't remember) at 100% of their income and it would only fund Medicare for all for 3 years before running out of money. That doesn't include all the other free shite they want too.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:37 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Those same tax rates were in effect well into the late 1970's.
False
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:39 am to beerJeep
quote:
Well, there is a marked increase in single parent households and out of wedlock childbirth in minorities from the 60s onwards.
Would you say that whatever rule change happened to cause this was a “good rule change” or a “bad rule change”
Inquiring minds would like to know
This is a subject for a different thread. We are talking about taxes. Stop trying to redirect. I should have never enabled you with your first redirect question.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:40 am to superwolf
AC handled that well considering she said she wanted to take most of his money.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:45 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
What does her ideal federal government NEED more money for?
Because she's a legit socialist and wants all money moved to the public sector
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:48 am to junkfunky
He's also a Vanderbilt heir.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:50 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Or, rich people vote with their feet and move their money out of your reach.
Yet we have people on this board that clamor daily for a border wall. Again, if it is effective at keeping people out, then logically it would be effective at keeping people in.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:52 am to Aubie Spr96
Yeah, that was kind of lame bro... 
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:52 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
Yet we have people on this board that clamor daily for a border wall. Again, if it is effective at keeping people out, then logically it would be effective at keeping people in.
Dumb argument. Not to mention there's no wall on the Canadian border.
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News