Jump to content


Photo

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


  • Please log in to reply
2014 replies to this topic

#561 toysoldier

toysoldier

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami is a beatiful city
  • Interests:Sci-fi, history, gameplay

Posted 22 January 2019 - 0629 AM

Yep. Bad pennies do return. Doesn't matter if they say "my work here is done", they return anyway.


  • 0

#562 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,594 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 22 January 2019 - 0954 AM

 

Maybe you guys should look at different media, to get a less incomplete perspective.

 

How often do you hear on Fox et al that the 'outrageous' proposal that AOC made was supported by economic experts who actually researched the issue, and has natioanl-level majority support way beyond the margin of error?

I suppose you never do.

 

http://nymag.com/int...l-tax-rate.html

 

http://nymag.com/int...n-new-deal.html

 

The first link also holds a criqitue of AOC that the rigt wingers at this palce aren't capable of:

There are reasonable critiques of Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan (raising taxes on capital gains might be a more effective way of soaking the superrich; a confiscatory top marginal rate might prove impotent, absent a global war on tax havens;

 

 

Funny with their general fondness for global war, there is no war on tax havens by the USA. Funny that.


  • 0

#563 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 22 January 2019 - 1026 AM

 

 

Maybe you guys should look at different media, to get a less incomplete perspective.

 

How often do you hear on Fox et al that the 'outrageous' proposal that AOC made was supported by economic experts who actually researched the issue, and has natioanl-level majority support way beyond the margin of error?

I suppose you never do.

 

http://nymag.com/int...l-tax-rate.html

 

http://nymag.com/int...n-new-deal.html

 

The first link also holds a criqitue of AOC that the rigt wingers at this palce aren't capable of:

There are reasonable critiques of Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan (raising taxes on capital gains might be a more effective way of soaking the superrich; a confiscatory top marginal rate might prove impotent, absent a global war on tax havens;

 

 

Funny with their general fondness for global war, there is no war on tax havens by the USA. Funny that.

 

Generally the US tends to fight tax havens by periodically changing the tax rules to make it harder to use them.  Then with a lower rate it makes it easier just to pony up the cash rather than spend time and money trying to hide it.  As the rate goes up so does the incentive to hide your income.


  • 0

#564 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 22 January 2019 - 1034 AM

 

As for the bigger point I keep harping on it's a solid point - Conservatives have failed at having real answers for some modern issues.  Health Care reform is the most recent and glaring example.  Eight years of bitching about Obamacare and when the time came to repeal and replace... they had nothing to offer.  It's not that there aren't decent Conservative ideas to push out there, either.  A big part of the problem stems from so many Rs in power being bought out by special interests.

 

 

The GOP lost me -again- when they went from "repealing Obamacare" to "repeal and replace". The GOP is supposed to be the party of small government and free markets and again and again, they show themselves to be a watered down version of the dems, who think government has to offer all the solutions.

 

 

Because what we had before Obamacare, and what we'd get by repealing it, was a true free market system?


  • 0

#565 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 22 January 2019 - 1321 PM

 

Maybe you guys should look at different media, to get a less incomplete perspective.

 

How often do you hear on Fox et al that the 'outrageous' proposal that AOC made was supported by economic experts who actually researched the issue, and has natioanl-level majority support way beyond the margin of error?

I suppose you never do.

 

http://nymag.com/int...l-tax-rate.html

 

http://nymag.com/int...n-new-deal.html

 

The first link also holds a criqitue of AOC that the rigt wingers at this palce aren't capable of:

There are reasonable critiques of Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan (raising taxes on capital gains might be a more effective way of soaking the superrich; a confiscatory top marginal rate might prove impotent, absent a global war on tax havens;

 

 

 

Maybe you guys should look at different media, to get a less incomplete perspective.

 

How often do you hear on Fox et al that the 'outrageous' proposal that AOC made was supported by economic experts who actually researched the issue, and has natioanl-level majority support way beyond the margin of error?

I suppose you never do.

 

http://nymag.com/int...l-tax-rate.html

 

http://nymag.com/int...n-new-deal.html

 

The first link also holds a criqitue of AOC that the rigt wingers at this palce aren't capable of:

There are reasonable critiques of Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan (raising taxes on capital gains might be a more effective way of soaking the superrich; a confiscatory top marginal rate might prove impotent, absent a global war on tax havens;

 

What is palce?

Whatever, good politics rarely makes for good policy.


  • 0

#566 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 22 January 2019 - 1531 PM

As the rate goes up so does the incentive to hide your income.


Presumably so, but IIRC research showed that the incentive kicks in at about 30% typically. So there's little reason to believe that 70% tax rate in final bracket motivates more effort to minimise tax payments than 30% does. And then there's diminishing returns; often times you simply cannot do more without accepting silly risks.

 

Anyway, I pointed out the 70% income tax rate on the final bracket proposal is actually supported by a majority of Americans (a weapons- and military-centric forum is not representative of Americans, thank god for that!) and it's well-respected among actual economists.

 

There are many ways how to devise better taxes and many better legislative proposals in general, but hers on taxes is actually a good one. Both in regard to politics and substance.


  • 0

#567 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 22 January 2019 - 1548 PM

https://www.econstatement.org/

 

The carbon fee and dividend will fail to reduce carbon emissions because people will use the rebate money to buy carbon based energy. That is particularly true wrt vehicle fuel. My cousin is a lead research economist at a major university. He posted that scheme on FB. At least two of his colleagues replied by explaining why it won't work. 


  • 0

#568 Wobbly Head

Wobbly Head

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Moncton

Posted 22 January 2019 - 1605 PM

https://www.econstatement.org/
 
The carbon fee and dividend will fail to reduce carbon emissions because people will use the rebate money to buy carbon based energy. That is particularly true wrt vehicle fuel. My cousin is a lead research economist at a major university. He posted that scheme on FB. At least two of his colleagues replied by explaining why it won't work.

Or the more simple reason it wont work is those who produce and sell goods and experence a cost increase of say 8.75% due to the carbon tax will simply increase the price of their goods and services by 10%. Completley negating any rebate that any consumer will recieve.

Its the exact same reason setting a high minimium wage doesnt work as companies exist to make money if something increases their costs they are going to increase their price to maintain their profits pasing the cost onto the consumer who may have just got a minimium wage raise which may not cover the increased costs of the minimium wage increase.

Edited by Wobbly Head, 22 January 2019 - 1617 PM.

  • 0

#569 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 22 January 2019 - 1625 PM

 

 

Anyway, I pointed out the 70% income tax rate on the final bracket proposal is actually supported by a majority of Americans 

 

 

I'm not surprised since the majority of Americans wouldn't be affected by it.  


  • 0

#570 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,993 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 22 January 2019 - 1710 PM

Don't half of them not pay any Fed Income Tax at all?


  • 0

#571 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,574 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 22 January 2019 - 1723 PM

Don't half of them not pay any Fed Income Tax at all?

 

Yes, and many of them still get big fat tax refunds. 


  • 0

#572 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 22 January 2019 - 1806 PM

 

Don't half of them not pay any Fed Income Tax at all?

 

Yes, and many of them still get big fat tax refunds. 

 

Well they should.  If you work, taxes are withheld from your check.  If you fill out the forms and you end up with a tax liability of 0 then you should get back the money that was withheld.  Perhaps you mean the earned income tax credit?  That does end up giving people who earn less than a certain amount more money than they paid in.  Arguments about the wisdom of that have been going on since it was instituted.  I tend to lean towards anything that gives someone an incentive to work rather than sit home and collect a check is a good thing.  Granted I've seen real life examples of people choosing not to get married because doing so would mean they ended up with less money but since it was a small subset of the people I knew collecting EIC I still think the balance is more favorable than not.


  • 0

#573 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 22 January 2019 - 2101 PM

Luke says we have to have "Solid Answers" to address the concerns of AOC.  Her latest concerns, in no particular order are: 1) We're all going to die in 12 years.  2.) Having wealth above some arbitrary level is immoral.  3.) Reparations are needed for everybody (white males need not apply), because New Deal and Red Lines...or something.  This is the person the GOP must take serious and address these concerns, with "Solid Answers", immediately or else there will be pitch forks and torches...or something.


Edited by DKTanker, 22 January 2019 - 2101 PM.

  • 0

#574 CT96

CT96

    Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Dragon Slayer Apprentice

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Virginia
  • Interests:Miltary History, Geopolitics, Computers

Posted 22 January 2019 - 2142 PM

Solid Answers:

 

1) Until the world actually stops spinning, we will continue on the assumption that it will continue. To do otherwise is to invite despair. We strive to make the world a better place for our children and our grandchildren.

 

2) Rather than apply some arbitrary cap to wealth or income or property or intelligence, let us instead find ways to incentiveize those who are "better off" to "give back" to their community, their country, and their planet. You CAN save the world AND get rich doing it. That's the American Way. 

 

3) Any living person who lived under Slavery in States or Territories of the United States are owed due compensation. Those responsible and enabling it should face maximum penalties under the law. Further, we should strive harder to work to stamp out the international sex slave trade. It is one of the greatest tragedies of our age that this illegal and immoral activity takes place in the world today.


  • 0

#575 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,614 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 23 January 2019 - 0417 AM

 

Maybe you guys should look at different media, to get a less incomplete perspective.

 

How often do you hear on Fox et al that the 'outrageous' proposal that AOC made was supported by economic experts who actually researched the issue, and has natioanl-level majority support way beyond the margin of error?

I suppose you never do.

 

http://nymag.com/int...l-tax-rate.html

 

http://nymag.com/int...n-new-deal.html

 

The first link also holds a criqitue of AOC that the rigt wingers at this palce aren't capable of:

There are reasonable critiques of Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan (raising taxes on capital gains might be a more effective way of soaking the superrich; a confiscatory top marginal rate might prove impotent, absent a global war on tax havens;

 

Last Dingo, what I am about to ask is done is all honesty. Have you ever lived in the U.S. for an extended period of time? Do you know of anyone in the U.S. who owns a business? Where do you receive your economic information about the U.S. from?

Thank you.


  • 0

#576 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,614 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 23 January 2019 - 0423 AM

 

 

 

The answer from Conservatives shouldn't be to laugh her off.  Like everything else it should be that they actually have a solid answer to whatever underlying problem she's trying to address and push it harder.

 

You keep saying this yet I don't think you've ever had a solid answer yourself other than to cluck about how concerns need to be addressed by the right. 

 

Unlike you I'm not an expert on everything.  In the fields I do feel more comfortable about (health care reform and government spending to name two) I have offered my own solutions (quite a few in recent weeks, actually).  Some have been fairly detailed (for TN standards, that is).  You're more than welcome to check them out.  They're not hard to find.

 

As for the bigger point I keep harping on it's a solid point - Conservatives have failed at having real answers for some modern issues.  Health Care reform is the most recent and glaring example.  Eight years of bitching about Obamacare and when the time came to repeal and replace... they had nothing to offer.  It's not that there aren't decent Conservative ideas to push out there, either.  A big part of the problem stems from so many Rs in power being bought out by special interests.

 

You and I are in basic agreement on health care. Being directly involved with Obamacare since day one, the answer to it was to abolish it. No replacement necessary. Conservatives do have the best (not perfect) answers "for modern issues", the answer is less government. If you want "special interests" out of government, keep government from being especially interested in businesses.


  • 0

#577 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 23 January 2019 - 0642 AM

Last Dingo, what I am about to ask is done is all honesty. Have you ever lived in the U.S. for an extended period of time? Do you know of anyone in the U.S. who owns a business? Where do you receive your economic information about the U.S. from?
Thank you.

I'm an economist by education and trade and back at university I specialised in all the exact right fields of economics to now discuss taxation, economic growth, income distribution, public finance in general.

A huge share of economic research is about observations in the U.S., in part because the identical federal law and 50 differing state legal situations allow for many, many natural experiments (observing the effects of changes). The body of published economic research is much better than anyone's personal anecdotes could ever be. And yes, I knew someone who lived in the U.S. and co-owned a business.

 

Well, that's my qualification background you asked for.

Which is utterly irrelevant because I pointed out facts with supporting links. It makes no more sense to talk about the messenger's background than to talk about the colour palette of your monitor.

 

I'd like to add that researching economists would never call for "free markets" as a solution to problems, for economic science has known market failures since the 19th century and used the term since mid-20th century. The idea that "free markets" are desirable is known to be nonsense and accordingly, it makes no sense to denounce regulation of economic activity by the government in general.

 

 

Last but not least; pay attention to the reality of Republicans serving corporate and billionnaire special interests much ore than Democrats. Vote for far left Democrats if you want to push back crony capitalism and its special interests-driven regulations, taxation and treaties! They're largely against it as well.

The Republicans are NOT governing for "less government" at the federal level, and experiments with doing so at the state level were disasters (see Kansas). They govern towards a bigger government, and talk a lot about smaller government when they're not controlling it. The contrast is even more stark when you add revenue to the picture; they are deficit hawks when they don't control the executive branch, and inflate the deficit (or create one in the first place) when they control the executive branch. They're useless hyporcrites who fish for votes with aversion (smear campaigns, hatemongering) against others (brown, women, gay, foreign, Democrats), with scaremongering (Caravan is coming! MS13! Terrorists! Arabs! Perverts in your restroom!) and once in power they govern and legislate for the special interests of the richest few per cent of the population, while using the levers of government to reinforce their hatemongering and scaremongering.

They're never going to get rid or abortion for good. They're never going to say the world is safe enough, less spending on power is needed. They're never going to give the middle class as big a tax cut as to the rich. They're never going to get rid of the "entitlement" programs.

 

They are never going to give you a small federal government.

 

They're ripping you off (unless you are rich).

 

But they sure are good at getting and keeping y'all thoroughly exasperated about some young congresswoman.

A person who happens to be a woman and brown, so double reason to disrespect and hate!


  • 0

#578 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,972 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 January 2019 - 0647 AM


 


 


 
The answer from Conservatives shouldn't be to laugh her off.  Like everything else it should be that they actually have a solid answer to whatever underlying problem she's trying to address and push it harder.
 

You keep saying this yet I don't think you've ever had a solid answer yourself other than to cluck about how concerns need to be addressed by the right. 
 
Unlike you I'm not an expert on everything.  In the fields I do feel more comfortable about (health care reform and government spending to name two) I have offered my own solutions (quite a few in recent weeks, actually).  Some have been fairly detailed (for TN standards, that is).  You're more than welcome to check them out.  They're not hard to find.
 
As for the bigger point I keep harping on it's a solid point - Conservatives have failed at having real answers for some modern issues.  Health Care reform is the most recent and glaring example.  Eight years of bitching about Obamacare and when the time came to repeal and replace... they had nothing to offer.  It's not that there aren't decent Conservative ideas to push out there, either.  A big part of the problem stems from so many Rs in power being bought out by special interests.
 
You and I are in basic agreement on health care. Being directly involved with Obamacare since day one, the answer to it was to abolish it. No replacement necessary. Conservatives do have the best (not perfect) answers "for modern issues", the answer is less government. If you want "special interests" out of government, keep government from being especially interested in businesses.

So you would abdicate your legislative authority to regulate health insurance companies, and let them set healthcare policy based on their shareholder priorities? Representative government is YOUR voice in policy matters.
  • 0

#579 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 23 January 2019 - 0656 AM

https://www.econstatement.org/
 
The carbon fee and dividend will fail to reduce carbon emissions because people will use the rebate money to buy carbon based energy. That is particularly true wrt vehicle fuel. My cousin is a lead research economist at a major university. He posted that scheme on FB. At least two of his colleagues replied by explaining why it won't work.

Or the more simple reason it wont work is those who produce and sell goods and experence a cost increase of say 8.75% due to the carbon tax will simply increase the price of their goods and services by 10%. Completley negating any rebate that any consumer will recieve.

Its the exact same reason setting a high minimium wage doesnt work as companies exist to make money if something increases their costs they are going to increase their price to maintain their profits pasing the cost onto the consumer who may have just got a minimium wage raise which may not cover the increased costs of the minimium wage increase.


Oh boy, I've seen this kind of nonsense in so many different contexts already. EVERY SINGLE TIME one looks at such arguments (for example in the context of wage increases) by actually doing basic math or paying attention to real world observations (a.k.a. empirical results) the argument falls apart. I guess sometime in the future English will have a dedicated term for this kind of logical fallacy.
 
 
JWB's argument can be taken apart with first even most basic microeconomics calculations (and even simple diagrams) and gets blown up completely by more advanced methods and real world observations.
Wobbly Head's argment is plain math nonsense (carbon-taxed goods and services make up but a small share of the overall private household spending, thus a 10% inflation in maybe 20% could not possibly compensate for the rebate. Moreover, consumption of carbon emisisons-causing goods and services would become comparatively more expensive and thus the actual use of such would decrease even if spending on it would increase - ceteris paribus).
 
 
That's where I got to say that laymen discussions of economics are very often utter nonsense. The purpose of the studies is to get away from intuition and guessing and towards using the tools of the trade to think about topics with clarity.

Edited by lastdingo, 23 January 2019 - 0657 AM.

  • 0

#580 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,614 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 23 January 2019 - 0834 AM

 

Last Dingo, what I am about to ask is done is all honesty. Have you ever lived in the U.S. for an extended period of time? Do you know of anyone in the U.S. who owns a business? Where do you receive your economic information about the U.S. from?
Thank you.

I'm an economist by education and trade and back at university I specialised in all the exact right fields of economics to now discuss taxation, economic growth, income distribution, public finance in general.

A huge share of economic research is about observations in the U.S., in part because the identical federal law and 50 differing state legal situations allow for many, many natural experiments (observing the effects of changes). The body of published economic research is much better than anyone's personal anecdotes could ever be. And yes, I knew someone who lived in the U.S. and co-owned a business.

 

Well, that's my qualification background you asked for.

Which is utterly irrelevant because I pointed out facts with supporting links. It makes no more sense to talk about the messenger's background than to talk about the colour palette of your monitor.

 

I'd like to add that researching economists would never call for "free markets" as a solution to problems, for economic science has known market failures since the 19th century and used the term since mid-20th century. The idea that "free markets" are desirable is known to be nonsense and accordingly, it makes no sense to denounce regulation of economic activity by the government in general.

 

 

Last but not least; pay attention to the reality of Republicans serving corporate and billionnaire special interests much ore than Democrats. Vote for far left Democrats if you want to push back crony capitalism and its special interests-driven regulations, taxation and treaties! They're largely against it as well.

The Republicans are NOT governing for "less government" at the federal level, and experiments with doing so at the state level were disasters (see Kansas). They govern towards a bigger government, and talk a lot about smaller government when they're not controlling it. The contrast is even more stark when you add revenue to the picture; they are deficit hawks when they don't control the executive branch, and inflate the deficit (or create one in the first place) when they control the executive branch. They're useless hyporcrites who fish for votes with aversion (smear campaigns, hatemongering) against others (brown, women, gay, foreign, Democrats), with scaremongering (Caravan is coming! MS13! Terrorists! Arabs! Perverts in your restroom!) and once in power they govern and legislate for the special interests of the richest few per cent of the population, while using the levers of government to reinforce their hatemongering and scaremongering.

They're never going to get rid or abortion for good. They're never going to say the world is safe enough, less spending on power is needed. They're never going to give the middle class as big a tax cut as to the rich. They're never going to get rid of the "entitlement" programs.

 

They are never going to give you a small federal government.

 

They're ripping you off (unless you are rich).

 

But they sure are good at getting and keeping y'all thoroughly exasperated about some young congresswoman.

A person who happens to be a woman and brown, so double reason to disrespect and hate!

 

Thank you. For my understanding; which university(s) did you receive your degree(s)? The state and the business of your known co-owner? Are you employed by a business, university, or government? The economists you find most influential? The most accurate?


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users