re: Little Miss Tippie Top Ocasio-Cortez wants to raise taxes to 70% to pay for some socialist

quote:

---

a handful of the wealthiest people can contribute more than all of the poor people combined-
Not the case. I posted the chart illustrating for you earlier in this thread. The “middle class” has way more income than “the rich” do. It’s not even close.

---

i will go take a look--i didn't see it.

quote:

---

So if you had facial neuropathy, would it be cool if I repeatedly punched you in the face? I mean, you’d never feel it if I broke your skull. So it would be cool right?

Quick question how many shirts do you own?

I have news for you. $1 taken from a rich pers buys exactly the same goods $1 does from a poor person. The idea that one can take something and it has greater or lesser value is silly.

---

it's not silly at all--if i lose $10k now, i don't feel it. if i lost $10k when i was in grad school, it would have ruined me. this isn't a difficult concept to grasp, and it's not even controversial. any economist would agree with me.

quote:

---

so why does it make sense to go after the people who have nothing???
No one has suggest that. But it’s a cute strawman.

---

there are people in this thread arguing that the poor people should pay more/pay their share, and that taxing the rich more is "punishing" them. again, this is right out in the open, so it's antithetical to a straw man.

quote:

---

If you took EVERY dollar of income by anyone making >$10million\yr, you couldn’t even lower the deficit by more than 30%. Much less “fix so many things”.

---

so your solution is what...to just not pay taxes? give up? I don't know what point you're trying to make here...

quote:

---

You’re dangerously ignorant. So much that you believe “the rich” can fund your dreams when they cannot. It’s you that got conned.

---

i don't need anyone to fund my dreams, lol. i'm in the 1% now (though I'm not by any means one of the ultra ultra wealthy), and i'm telling you this is a con job, pure and simple. and it's not even a good one, other than the fact that it works.

quote:

---

If it’s revenue, you raise taxes on the $50k-$500k income levels. That’s where the most money is. So even a small rate hike raises more money than a HUGE raise on “the rich” does.

---

this is actually fine with me, but ideally, i'd suggest only raising taxes on people it doesn't really "hurt," and based on my experience, i felt the sting of taxes up until the mid-150s. but i live in a super expensive area (metro NY), so it may not be that high in places with a lower cost of living.

I still think we're aiming at the wrong target though.

quote:

---

i will go take a look--i didn't see it.

---

Good grief.

quote:

---

it's not silly at all--if i lose $10k now, i don't feel it. if i lost $10k when i was in grad school, it would have ruined me.

---

Muh feels!!! Oh. lawd. Muh feels!! $10k buys the same amount of stuff. Either way.

quote:

---

this isn't a difficult concept to grasp, and it's not even controversial. any economist would agree with me.

---

Nice bandwagon fallacy. They wouldn't. They would tell you $1 = $1.

quote:

---

there are people in this thread arguing that the poor people should pay more/pay their share, and that taxing the rich more is "punishing" them. again, this is right out in the open, so it's antithetical to a straw man.

---

You changed your argument. Go read what I quoted, and even bolded for you. That said, you'll have to define "poor". Clearly a sizable portion of the 47% that pay no federal income tax are NOT by any sensible measure "poor". Further, if you believe man has duty to help his fellow man, why does being poor relieve anyone of that duty? Are your morals means-tested?

quote:

---

so your solution is what...to just not pay taxes?

---

YANSM (yet another strawman).

quote:

---

I don't know what point you're trying to make here..

---

Really? You can't figure it out? You made an absurd claim that increasing tax rates could "fix so many things". That's is absurd on it's face. It wouldn't even cover 1/3 of the current deficit, much less pay for more spending to "solve problems".

quote:

---

i don't need anyone to fund my dreams, lol. i'm in the 1% now

---

So how much extra taxes are you sending in this year to "fix problems"?

quote:

---

i'm telling you this is a con job, pure and simple

---

You can't even support your position with facutal information and data. Don't tell me I'm the one that's conned.

quote:

---

politicians are demonstrably scumbags for the most part, but at least there are a few good ones.

---

And you're accusing others of being conned?

We always talk about civil war on this board. Can you imagine the shite that would happen if they would do that lol

quote:

---

Can you imagine the shite that would happen if they would do that

---

Its simple. No imagination required. There are numerous examples from history. The rich would take their capital and leave. And economic growth would cease.

You keep arguing purchasing power, while I'm arguing utility. If I have a million dollars, another dollar isn't going to make a difference to me, whereas if I had 1 dollar, another dollar would be a huge difference to me. I can't tell if you're trying to be intentionally obtuse or if you genuinely can't understand the difference. If you can't understand the difference, we should just stop chatting because I'd be just as successful screaming into the void.

If you can grasp marginal utility (which I'm sure you can--you're clearly not an idiot), you can grasp the idea of "feeling" taxes, and how they affect people of different economic strata differently. I'm not talking about "magic dollars" or any of the other shite you're trying to obfuscate my argument with. It's simple.

If we need to raise taxes on the upper-middle class, too, I'm all for it. As I mentioned ad nauseum at this point, it won't hurt us much. Sadly this wouldn't be necessary (or less so) if we found a way to actually tax the ultra wealthy at a real rate. We're all scrambling to find workarounds, often aiming at the poor (lol) because those at the very top (the tippy top!) don't actually pay anywhere close to their share of taxes.

And lastly, someone pointing out and/or trying to mitigate blatant and overwhelming inequity isn't something to froth at the mouth over. I assure you the majority of the billionaires you try so hard to knight for you wouldn't think of reciprocating the favor.

quote:

---

You keep arguing purchasing power, while I'm arguing feelings

---

FIFY. Both dollars have the same utility. They both buy $1 worth of goods and services.

quote:

---

another dollar isn't going to make a difference to me

---

Yes. It will. You will lose $1 worth of utility. A is A.

quote:

---

I'm not talking about "magic dollars"

---

You're clearly arguing that $1 has different amounts of value based on the income of the person that owns it. That simply isn't true. When I buy a gallon of milk, they do not ask for my income to determine what my dollars are worth. They are exactly the same as anyone else's.

quote:

---

Sadly this wouldn't be necessary (or less so) if we found a way to actually tax the ultra wealthy at a real rate.

---

We've been over this already. You could take EVERY dollar of income of ALL the people that make >$10million and not even come close to balancing the budget.

quote:

---

because those at the very top (the tippy top!) don't actually pay anywhere close to their share of taxes

---

You're clueless. Math is not on your side. FOr example...

LINK

quote:

---

Richest 1,409 taxpayers pay more income tax than bottom 70Mln

---

A mere 3% pay half of the entire federal tax bill.

We have vastly different definitions of "fair" if you think that is "fair". It's not. You have a small minority getting screwed by any sensible definition.

quote:

---

And lastly, someone pointing out and/or trying to mitigate blatant and overwhelming inequity isn't something to froth at the mouth over.

---

As I asked (and you avoided) is the purpose of taxes to raise revenue, or diminish "inequity"? There's a word for the latter. But it's not taxes.

quote:

---

I assure you the majority of the billionaires you try so hard to knight for you wouldn't think of reciprocating the favor.

---

You are clueless. A billionaire helped my start me company. I'm thankful he was allowed (sic) to keep his own money and use it productively.

The idea I (or anyone else) would have been better off if he was poorer is silly.

Question: would you consider moving to Venezeula, or South Africa?

quote:

---

If we need to raise taxes on the upper-middle class, too, I'm all for it. As I mentioned ad nauseum at this point, it won't hurt us much. Sadly this wouldn't be necessary (or less so) if we found a way to actually tax the ultra wealthy at a real rate. We're all scrambling to find workarounds, often aiming at the poor (lol) because those at the very top (the tippy top!) don't actually pay anywhere close to their share of taxes.

---

You have to be either trolling, or a college student.