Posted on 01/12/2019 10:30:38 AM PST by yesthatjallen
House Democrats are treading carefully when it comes to talk of a 70 percent marginal tax rate on income above $10 million, an idea floated by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in a recent “60 Minutes” interview.
Many Democrats are supportive of the freshman phenom’s call for higher taxes on the rich, but even some progressives are stopping short of endorsing that high a marginal rate.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said she thinks “the fact that people are not paying their fair share is a problem and the millionaires and billionaires are the ones where that has to rest.”
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a leader of the progressive caucus in the last Congress, said that while it’s important to make sure that “everybody’s carrying their load,” he didn’t know if 70 percent “would be the right number or not.”
House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said he wasn’t sure about a specific top rate but said that Ocasio-Cortez is “not off-base.”
Other Democratic lawmakers were more critical.
“I thought it was comical,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), a member of the tax writing Ways and Means panel.
“You can have reasonable taxation, and then you can send signals that we’re just going to go after people who have a few dollars,” he said.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is first vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said he would take a different approach to raising revenue, such as repealing past tax cuts on high earners, taxing corporations on foreign earnings that currently aren’t being taxed, creating a financial transactions tax and reducing U.S. military involvement overseas.
“My view is one that there are better ways of getting to the revenue” than a 70-percent tax on high incomes, he said.
Ocasio-Cortez floated the idea as a way to help pay for a “Green New Deal,” a proposal aimed at taking action on climate change.
More broadly, the new lawmaker has argued that a progressive tax system with higher taxes on the wealthy is well worth considering as the country looks for ways to pay for initiative on healthcare and other safety-net issues.
She also made the argument that such high rates are hardly unprecedented.
“You look at our tax rates back in the '60s and when you have a progressive tax rate system your tax rate, you know, let's say, from zero to $75,000 maybe 10 percent or 15 percent, et cetera. But once you get to, like, the tippy tops — on your 10 millionth dollar — sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
She noted that a high marginal rate wouldn’t hit most Americans, and that it would also only pinch a portion of a wealthy person’s income. A 70 percent marginal rate on income of $10 million would be effective only on a person’s income above $10 million.
“That doesn't mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more,” she said in the “60 Minutes” interview.
Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent told The Hill that what the congresswoman’s remarks on the show were “more conceptual” than a specific proposal for a 70 percent marginal rate.
The top marginal tax rate in the United States was above 90 percent in much of the 1950s and early 1960s, and the rate was 70 percent as recently as 1980.That year, the 70-percent rate applied to income over $215,400 for married couples.
During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the top rate was first cut to 50 percent and then lowered again to 28 percent.
In the last 25 years, the top rate has been in the mid-to-high 30s, with President Trump’s tax law lowering the top rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. In 2019, the 37-percent rate applies to income over $612,350 for a married couple filing jointly.
Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a 70 percent marginal tax rate does have the support of another freshman progressive lawmaker: Rep. Ayana Pressley (D-Mass.), who said she could potentially see herself introducing or sponsoring legislation down the line.
“I think we have a decisive mandate from this electorate, this 116th Congressional class to be bold. I think every creative solution needs to be on the table,”Pressley told The Hill. “And from a values based perspective to tax those, you know, who earn $10 million a year, I think it's exactly what we should be doing.”
Pressley said, while she and most members are currently focused on the partial government shutdown, she looks forward to continuing having a dialogue with like-minded members as they consider crafting policy.
ETC...
Soros could set a good example by voluntarily paying 70%.
“the fact that people are not paying their fair share is a problem and the millionaires and billionaires are the ones where that has to rest.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No mention of the 50% of the people who don’t pay a penny.
Here’s your “debate” for you: NO
All the Rat voters, if they were true believers, could begin sending in that extra money today. No need to wait for Congress and the President to make a change. Rats believe they are not taxed enough - put up time.
She should pay 70% of her salary as an example of pure socialism.
Anyone that wants high tax rates like that should impose it on themselves and send it to Uncle Sam. Why wait? Just do it.
I want a 50% tax on billionaire ASSETS. Total holdings. That would redistribute quite a bit of wealth & may stop people like Soros & Steyer from undermining our constitution with their funding of leftist groups.
Go for it. Remind Americans why we shouldn’t vote for Democrats (they should change their name to Socialists)
In 1979 I was making $16.64 an hour working construction. My check was $364 take home and $344 federal taxes...Interest rates were 18% and higher.
PDJT should start calling them "Democrat Socialists." No need to wait for them to be honest.
Why not just make it 100%, and if you have the Left Politics, you get your Mealy Meal?
The GOP should respond by proposing a constitutional amendment that limits the Government to a single tax rate that get applied equally to all citizens.
In 1979 I was making $16.64 an hour working construction. My check was $364 take home and $344 federal taxes...Interest rates were 18% and higher.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Same here...until March of 1980 when it all collapsed. Thanks, Carter.
The East Coast of FL is going to get very crowded soon.
Only 52 percent of Americans pay income taxes and this moron, Grijalva, says he wants to make sure everyone is carrying the load. Grijalva is carrying and pimping the biggest “load” of all and we’re supposed to believe the moron.
The only thing O’casio “sparks”, are face-palms.
I get concerned to hear liberals say, we need the wealthy for pay their fair share.
If someone is complying with our tax laws, aren’t they by definition, paying Their fsir share?
What about the facts, such as how the top 15% of income earners pay something like 75% of all income tax revenue?
What about the fact that we have a graduated income tax system, so that those at higher income levels are already paying higher marginal tax rates?
What do they people want? Confiscatory taxation?
I am not to sure she doesn’t make a point. We need to confiscate enough of the rich in America’s wealth to pay of the debt! Allow so much for each person in the family and take the rest from those who are multi millionaires.
EXACTLY. She needs to give a straight answer; what about those who pay nothing? What is their fair share?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.