Why are the cons obsessed with AOC?

[DGUtley]

On the contrary, I've heard economics experts say that even without any spending cuts elsewhere, a 75% top marginal income tax rate would pay for many of the programs (including the Green New Deal) that AOC has proposed by itself. I don't dispute her support for Modern Monetary Theory. I just don't see the relevance of that here.

Why should the wealthy pay so dramatically more? If we're going to have a top marginal tax rate of 75% then let's have a lowest marginal tax rate of; let's say: 50% -- or, 60 or 40 -- but something close. Everybody should contribute, yes? I mean if they're going to reach into joe moneybags pocket to give benefit to the country, shouldn't they reach into your (mine, his, her, its) pocket just about as much? Why should us lower than top tier tax earners get away with not paying a high percentage also? We live here too!!

GND NEW TAX RATES:
0 - $1,000,000 per year 50%
$1,000,000 - 10,000,000 per year 60%
$10,000,000 - infinity per year 70%

JOIN ME IN VOTING: YES!!! SAVE THE PLANET, SPREAD THE PAIN

[IMPress Polly]

Why should the wealthy pay so dramatically more? If we're going to have a top marginal tax rate of 75% then let's have a lowest marginal tax rate of; let's say: 50% -- or, 60 or 40 -- but something close. Everybody should contribute, yes? I mean if they're going to reach into joe moneybags pocket to give benefit to the country, shouldn't they reach into your (mine, his, her, its) pocket just about as much? Why should us lower than top tier tax earners get away with not paying a high percentage also? We live here too!!

GND NEW TAX RATES:
0 - $1,000,000 per year 50%
$1,000,000 - 10,000,000 per year 60%
$10,000,000 - infinity per year 70%

JOIN ME IN VOTING: YES!!! SAVE THE PLANET, SPREAD THE PAIN

Well personally, I'm not really opposed to high taxes on even middle class people. I mean, my ideal is of a world reorganized into networks of communes. Communes, properly understood, are communities wherein the community itself owns more or less everything and distributes benefits to the population according to need. There's a way of reading that as functionally more or less a universal 100% income tax. I'm fine with that because I believe that people tend to benefit more when they use society's resources in collaboration than they do in isolation. That philosophy has actually been the more traditional argument for left wing economics in general and it's where I stand.

Personally, if I could have everything my way, there would, at minimum, be an absolute income ceiling in our laws and most people indeed would pay more than 70% of their annual income to the government. In exchange though, they would receive all of life's necessities for free, including health care, education (at all levels, including pre-K and university), housing, utilities, food, child care services, etc., would be guaranteed employment (if able to work of course), and more. Maybe we could even look toward a future wherein the use of money and exchange in general can be done away with altogether even. That's kind of my dream future. I'm not foreseeing that becoming a reality on any appreciable scale, but that's what I dream of. So yeah, in principle, I'm not actually opposed to high income taxes in general. But the point of them really needs to be to benefit the population, and in particular the poorer, more disadvantaged sections thereof, NOT just take from them in the form of consumption taxes in order to fund a tax break for rich people.

[Chris]

Why should the wealthy pay so dramatically more? If we're going to have a top marginal tax rate of 75% then let's have a lowest marginal tax rate of; let's say: 50% -- or, 60 or 40 -- but something close. Everybody should contribute, yes? I mean if they're going to reach into joe moneybags pocket to give benefit to the country, shouldn't they reach into your (mine, his, her, its) pocket just about as much? Why should us lower than top tier tax earners get away with not paying a high percentage also? We live here too!!

GND NEW TAX RATES:
0 - $1,000,000 per year 50%
$1,000,000 - 10,000,000 per year 60%
$10,000,000 - infinity per year 70%

JOIN ME IN VOTING: YES!!! SAVE THE PLANET, SPREAD THE PAIN

Why should the wealthy pay so dramatically more?

Because it's easy for the 99% to tax the hell out of them. Consequences are not foreseen.



Regardless, throughout US history when rates have been high, revenues have gone down (Laffer Curve). The rich hide their wealth or move it overseas.

[Chris]

Well personally, I'm not really opposed to high taxes on even middle class people. I mean, my ideal is of a world reorganized into networks of communes. Communes, properly understood, are communities wherein the community itself owns more or less everything and distributes benefits to the population according to need. There's a way of reading that as functionally more or less a universal 100% income tax. I'm fine with that because I believe that people tend to benefit more when they use society's resources in collaboration than they do in isolation. That philosophy has actually been the more traditional argument for left wing economics in general and it's where I stand.

Personally, if I could have everything my way, there would, at minimum, be an absolute income ceiling in our laws and most people indeed would pay more than 70% of their annual income to the government. In exchange though, they would receive all of life's necessities for free, including health care, education (at all levels, including pre-K and university), housing, utilities, food, child care services, etc., would be guaranteed employment (if able to work of course), and more. Maybe we could even look toward a future wherein the use of money and exchange in general can be done away with altogether even. That's kind of my dream future. I'm not foreseeing that becoming a reality on any appreciable scale, but that's what I dream of. So yeah, in principle, I'm not actually opposed to high income taxes in general. But the point of them really needs to be to benefit the population, and in particular the poorer, more disadvantaged sections thereof, NOT just take from them in the form of consumption taxes in order to fund a tax break for rich people.

Communes, properly understood...

You mean as understood or desired by you. As in "Personally, if I could have everything my way."

the community itself owns more or less everything and distributes benefits to the population according to need.

Look up the economic calculation problem. Mises raised it, Hayek argued it, the socialists thought they won the degate because the USSR was surviving, albeit on the backs of the people. Whencentral planning started sliding economically, the socialists tried using prices in the West to guide their central planning. When the Soviet Union collapsed economically, the socialist conceded the debate.

You will ignore this as I have asked you about this ever since you joined the forum and you have always ignored it.