As always the socialists always run someone they can pull the strings of because they know they themselves could never get voted for or in office unless along side of another...in this case Cortez was picked by him, not the other way around.
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...
Fair share? How about 10% tax on the people who don’t pay anything now?
How about a tax on the money Mexicans earn under the table and send home? transfer tax.
How about a word tax on every thing politicians say that is stupid?
“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.”
Totally absurd.
We can’t all be doctors and lawyers.
At least half of us must take work paid at below the median rate.
At least 25% must take the jobs in the lower compensation quartile.
I live on about $5,000 a year.
I can’t get by on $3,000/year.
A surgeon that makes $1.2 million/year can get by on $700,000/year after tax.
A CEO paid $35 million/year can get by on $1 million/year.
If you,like, expect everyone to pay taxes and stuff then you must be a racist or something. /Sheldon
As if anyone actually draws such salaries any more. Good luck morons.
The rich as a group do not have enough money for any kind of wealth tax to pay off the Debt. All the wealth there might last a few months or a year then it’s spent. You would not make a dent in the national debt.
Trump proposed a 10% wealth tax years ago when that would have easily paid off the National Debt and put the country on a firm financial footing, if done then with a dedicated revenue stream to keep debt paid down in the future we would be in great shape. I am afraid it’s too late for that now.
Ok, that’s even of this bs. Communists, real communists, not ‘’democratic socialism’’, communism. Time for a 2nd. solution.
No NOT absurd. It is call equal treatment under the law.
Nobody, NOBODY, who has that kind of money ends up paying anywhere near that rate. Those who have already acquired great wealth need only reduce their actual annual income to a mere trickle, to fall far below that rate. And any decent tax lawyer, who follows the rules set up and meant to protect members of the House and Senate from onerous tax bills, need only to seek out and apply those special provisions to their own clients. By shifting investments around to those which are considered eligible for low or no-tax status, taxes may be avoided, which is much different than tax evasion.
In this country, wealth is not taxed. Only certain classes of income are ever taxed.
meant 2nd. Amendment solution. I’m not giving up 70% of what I work for to some yapping, bug eyed socialist bitch from the Bronx.
What no one talks about is that when the country has those high tax rates no one paid them. There were a great many tax deduction you could take and that reduced the tax bite a great deal.
Also that was the post war period when this country was rebuilding the rest of the world, we were a creditor nation and for about 25 years after the war we were the top dog with very little competition. All that has now changed.
Going back to those kind of high rates would probably destroy what is left of the country.
Would Congress be excluded?
> She should pay 70% of her salary as an example of pure socialism. <
I’d be happy enough if she paid her entire staff - including herself - using Socialist principles. Ocasio-Cortez is single. So she should be paid only 1/4 as much as, say, a clerk who is supporting a family of four.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Karl Marx
“While money can’t buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.”
Groucho Marx
As always the socialists always run someone they can pull the strings of because they know they themselves could never get voted for or in office unless along side of another...in this case Cortez was picked by him, not the other way around.
Not good enough.
The marginal rates should be:
10,000,000+ = 190%.
5,000,000 - 10,000,000 = 175%.
1,000,000 - 5,000,000 = 130%.
500,000 - 1,000,000 = 120%.
200,000 - 500,000 = 115%.
100,000 - 200,000 = 112%.
70,000 - 100,000 = 110%.
50,000 - 70,000 = 108%.
25,000 - 50,000 = 107%.
10,000 - 20,000 = 106%.
Under 10,000 = 105%.
We are running federal deficits on the order of $1 trillion/year.
Tax credit refundability needs to vanish.
The middle class needs to pay considerably more.
The high income folks need to pay at about the rate she suggests.
Capital gains need to be taxed at standard rates.
Only if tax rates are raised will there be a will to cut spending.
Half the nation draws from the federal trough.
Looks like that guy just rolled out of bed. Unkept and wrinkled clothes, unshaven, hair unkempt
The young ones don’t know that few people will pay 70%.
They’ll find a workaround, like always.
I read some years back that H. Ross Perot at the time was making $360 million a year and paying 8% of it back in income taxes. The top rate at the time was 39.5%.
High tax rates don’t hurt the rich. They hurt the small business person who has that couple of big years near the end of his/her career, and employed people finally making a high salary has they approach retirement.
It’s called screwing the people who do things right and produce.
I think you are posting on the wrong board. Were you looking for DU or Huffing?
That’s the first time I heard his name.
So you can live on $3k a year and:
“A CEO paid $35 million/year can get by on $1 million/year.”
What the hell has that got to do with how people should be taxed?
Why don’t you just say everything people make above $3k a year just goes straight to the government? People don’t “need” any more than that.
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.