Listen to this, if only her opening couple of sentences. This is an intelligent, articulate human being.
That's what I'm talking about. Sensible politics.
That's what I'm talking about. Sensible politics.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Bringing Moral Courage to American Politics
- Thread starter iuwclurker
- Start date
What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know (use incognito window) about tax policy? A lot.
So AOC, far from showing her craziness, is fully in line with serious economic research. (I hear that she’s been talking to some very good economists.) Her critics, on the other hand, do indeed have crazy policy ideas — and tax policy is at the heart of the crazy.
...
Which brings me back to AOC, and the constant effort to portray her as flaky and ignorant. Well, on the tax issue she’s just saying what good economists say; and she definitely knows more economics than almost everyone in the G.O.P. caucus, not least because she doesn’t “know” things that aren’t true.
...
Which brings me back to AOC, and the constant effort to portray her as flaky and ignorant. Well, on the tax issue she’s just saying what good economists say; and she definitely knows more economics than almost everyone in the G.O.P. caucus, not least because she doesn’t “know” things that aren’t true.
Old story after primary win but is this what she actually believes?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ocasio-cortez-democratic-socialist-of-america
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ocasio-cortez-democratic-socialist-of-america
She's definitely not stupid. People may not agree with her policy positions but she's got a political ideology and is good at explaining things and excellent at social media.
AOC is already getting people to understand how marginal tax rates work (i.e., your first $X is taxed at one rate for everyone, then it goes up for the next $X), instead of the myth Republicans peddle of "oh I got a raise but I moved into a new tax bracket so I actually took home less".
I'm skeptical of her for higher leadership, etc at this point until I see what she does, but I think she's been a positive for the Democratic Party.
AOC is already getting people to understand how marginal tax rates work (i.e., your first $X is taxed at one rate for everyone, then it goes up for the next $X), instead of the myth Republicans peddle of "oh I got a raise but I moved into a new tax bracket so I actually took home less".
I'm skeptical of her for higher leadership, etc at this point until I see what she does, but I think she's been a positive for the Democratic Party.
Did Cuban get it right? Or did he fall into the false equivalence trap?
I can't speak to what the platform of the DSA actually is, but (1) they didn't cite AOC at all (unless I'm already mis-remembering it); and (2) some of the "alarming" calls for those positions deemed ultra-liberal probably aren't "ultra" after digging in more.
To know what AOC believes, you have to read what she's actually said. I may have missed it, but I don't know that she's waging war on capitalism. I don't think she's even calling for socialized medicine (which is different than single payer). Her calls for abolishing "for profit" prisons (regardless of her position's merit) isn't calling for abolishment of incarceration. Her call for the abolishment of ICE isn't, to my knowledge, calling for an end to immigration enforcement, but instead for keeping it structured along the way INS formerly was and out of the hands of terrorism hunters who are prone to civil rights abuses*. Etc. Etc.
That's not to vouch for her at all or to suggest she's a thought leader among the Democrats.
I think it was Tom Perez who purportedly said something about AOC being the future of the party, but that wasn't really exactly what he said. It was more along the lines that she is typical of a new voice in the party and that that new voice will be an important one going forward. I don't believe he was suggesting that SHE is the answer, but rather that a new generation has a different viewpoint and perspective and will make itself heard.
Hinging all that on AOC would be a mistake.
To her credit, though, and as I said someplace else over the past couple days, the advantage she (and likely others) is bringing now is a mindset unencumbered by experience and understanding of bureaucratic norms. That's good and bad, obviously. Structural norms have value. But, without intending to compare AOC to a child, sometimes breaking those bureaucratic norms allows for The Emperor Has No Clothes moments.
Finally, even if AOC is very liberal, she's not the king. At worst (for conservatives), she and others like her might push the conversation and negotiation a bit. That's my point about anchoring. Many Democrats believe the negotiation has skewed far too right for too long (e.g., Grover Norquist, NRA, climate, etc.)
*It would be useful if we tethered our immigration and southern border conversations to the reality of the numbers of the past so many years and use those numbers to quantify and explain any issue and the proper response given our current situation (as opposed to the false narrative that is not supported by data).
Last edited:
The DSA evidently isn't legally a political party, so no platform per se. They seem to have a massive case of need for social engineering (my bold):
DSA believes that the fight for democratic socialism is one and the same as the fight for radical democracy, which we understand as the freedom of all people to determine all aspects of their lives to the greatest extent possible. Our vision entails nothing less than the radical democratization of all areas of life, not least of which is the economy. Under capitalism we are supposed to take for granted that a small, largely unaccountable group of corporate executives should make all fundamental decisions about the management of a company comprised of thousands of people. This group has the power to determine how most of us spend the lion’s share of our waking hours, as well as the right to fire anyone for basically any reason, no matter how arbitrary. Under democratic socialism, this authoritarian system would be replaced with economic democracy. This simply means that democracy would be expanded beyond the election of political officials to include the democratic management of all businesses by the workers who comprise them and by the communities in which they operate. Very large, strategically important sectors of the economy — such as housing, utilities and heavy industry — would be subject to democratic planning outside the market, while a market sector consisting of worker-owned and -operated firms would be developed for the production and distribution of many consumer goods. In this society, large-scale investments in new technologies and enterprises would be made on the basis of maximizing the public good, rather than shareholder value. Crucially, investments in renewable energy and efficient technologies would be prioritized to guarantee ecological sustainability and the future existence of life on Earth.
These folks need to emigrate to Sweden or maybe join up with China in colonizing the dark side of the moon(bat).
I think your point about anchoring is good. An example that was brought up in the rules fight is PAYGO. Progressives wanted it stripped. Think of it this way, we do not require tax cuts be paid for. In fact, many Republicans argue wrongly that tax cuts pay for themselves. It may be they have some modest amount of cost recovery in them, I haven't researched enough to state that is wrong or right. But in that regard, government programs also have a modest amount of cost recovery in them. Especially something like infrastructure and education. Yet that cost recovery is not allowed to be considered in PAYGO. We've allowed the debate to be anchored pretty far right.
The notion that we should pay for “tax cuts” is a useless point. It’s a sound bite. When we speak of tax cuts we speak of rates, not revenue. The largest tax cut in recent years was caused by the Great Recession—not by legislation. That tax cut was quickly followed by legislating payroll tax cuts that the administration claimed raised incomes. We now have record tax revenue. We also have increased tariffs which is a tax increase.
The largest influence on tax revenue is the level of activity of the subject of the tax.
Last edited:
Just a few posts above, maestro:
"Democrats: Take away 70% of your income and give it to leftist fantasy programs" is not take away the 70% over $10M.
It might strike you as absurd on its face but when peddled to Lucites, it dumbs them down to the point of voting for Trump and his lies.
Yeah, but it's really got nothing to do with Twitter. That's him. He lied. He's a liar. Period. Meanwhile, AOC isn't afraid to honestly stake her radical positions but in the context of clearly defining them.
Lol. Now Republicans are intelligence deniers too? You need to understand that people can disagree with liberal BS without being a denier, racist, afraid of strong women, or a Lucite.
What he said was totally disingenuous, no? As I understand it....the 70% she was talking about was a marginal rate over $10m?
It's a dumb policy idea that doesn't accomplish anything positive...but it does Scalisce no good to totally distort it.
You mean like, saving on funeral costs for people that won't die will help offset the cost of medicare for all? Or, that the unemployment rate is only low because people are working two jobs? That sort of thing?
You can cherry pick all you want, but she's had some whoppers.
The rates DO matter, it is silly to suggest we could set the rates anywhere between .0001% and 99.999% and it has no impact on revenue.
Oh, and about that record tax revenue. Here is their final takeaway:
The Wall Street Journal editorial board argues that because nominal revenue is rising, rising deficits are solely the result of spending. While we certainly agree on the need to control spending, it is hard to argue revenue is rising except in a very narrow sense. By any measure that takes into account the entire tax code after the tax bill, it is clear revenue has fallen significantly – especially in real dollars or as a share of the economy.
Of course rates matter at the extremes you suggested. And it would indeed be silly to suggest otherwise. But you know I didn’t say that. Taxes affect behavior. There are too many variables to quantify in any meaningful way the effect of a rate change, or bracket adjustment, to “pay for” that change.
It sounds like you don't believe the progressivity of the tax code matters? Maybe I'm just getting hung up on the word anything. Were you referencing the rate, or the $10 million, as being so large an insignificant amount would qualify? Please elaborate.
Over longer periods of time the effects of the rate and bracket changes becomes more clear.
Right, but that is also true of spending. If the US government were to add $1 trillion in aid to Freedonia, it adds almost nothing back to US tax rolls. But a trillion in infrastructure adds back some money but that isn't allowed to be considered in PAYGO. A classic example, I wonder how much revenue TVA brought back into the US by making the areas it impacts more competitive? Same for the hydro-electric power out west?
We assume app expenses are 100% negative to the budget and that isn't entirely true is it?
That sounds more stupid than lying, but give me any links you come across and I'll take a look. I haven't seen anything like that. In the case above, Scalise's own link quotes AOC in context and talks about her exact stance. It's Scalise who knowingly lied.
Scalise knowingly lied. Fact. Don't believe me, click on his link in his tweet.
And don't get me wrong, AOC turned me off already being a member of DSA. I'm just looking for evidence she's stupid or of average intelligence, which has been implied here and elsewhere.
Edit: What also turned me off in the OP interview was that she's going to pay for her free college and other radical ideas using the $2T from taxation and some other moneys from some other sources. That's patently bullshit because it doesn't address paying down our debt. That's just Bernhead cartoon economics, which I ridiculed The Bern about here throughout the 2016 campaign. Bernheads love themselves some cartoon economics.
Last edited:
Just the idea that you can raise any substantial revenue from only the top 0.1% of earners....or even the top 1%.
When rubber meets road on any of her policies....it will become clear that you must substantially raise taxes on the middle/middle-upper class groups to raise any real revenue to fund any of her policy desires. This is something that both parties are perennially opposed to....they've been slashing taxes on the middle class for a generation+....and why we are so far in debt.
Just slamming wealth taxes on the very end of the bell curve does nothing other than provide some emotional satisfaction to those on the left.
Last edited:
Bullchit:
The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth, according to a new report.
The total wealth in the world grew by 6 percent over the past 12 months to $280 trillion, marking the fastest wealth creation since 2012, according to the Credit Suisse report. More than half of the $16.7 trillion in new wealth was in the U.S., which grew $8.5 trillion richer.
There's no doubt that a radical reallocation of wealth could pay down debt. The question has to do with the ramifications.
If you look at taxing history in W. Europe and Scandinavia, you find this reality at play. Think of the countries that tried to implement "wealth taxes" only to find they produced very little income and much money was spent "chasing down" taxpayers who were "hiding" resources.
That's why if we are to have a serious conversation about raising revenues, it does include the high earners for sure, but must also include the middle class. The functional economies of Scandinavia have high rates, but are relatively flat in terms of progressivity.
Wealth or income? Taxes are collected mostly in transit from transactions (paychecks, selling property, etc...). Are you proposing wealth taxes on assets and holdings not transacted?
Krugman:
Look at the history of top marginal income tax rates (left) versus growth in real GDP per capita (right, measured over 10 years, to smooth out short-run fluctuations.):
What we see is that America used to have very high tax rates on the rich — higher even than those AOC is proposing — and did just fine. Since then tax rates have come way down, and if anything the economy has done less well.
Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data? Well, ask who benefits from low taxes on the rich, and it’s obvious.
And because the party’s coffers demand adherence to nonsense economics, the party prefers “economists” who are obvious frauds and can’t even fake their numbers effectively.
Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data? Well, ask who benefits from low taxes on the rich, and it’s obvious.
And because the party’s coffers demand adherence to nonsense economics, the party prefers “economists” who are obvious frauds and can’t even fake their numbers effectively.
I'm not defending Scalise. Scalise, in this thread, is just a wutabout deflection from your original point, which seems to be that AOC is "intelligent and articulate."
But per the two I mentioned:
But there are tons of clips of her saying ridiculous things, and looking less that "intelligent and articulate."
Lots of people probably agree with whatever message it is she's carrying. I'm just not sure she's the best messenger.
So what's your point? You want a wealth tax...that forces the wealthy to liquidate their capital positions to pay the govt?
Talk about a recipe for a market crash.
Krugman:
Look at the history of top marginal income tax rates (left) versus growth in real GDP per capita (right, measured over 10 years, to smooth out short-run fluctuations.):
What we see is that America used to have very high tax rates on the rich — higher even than those AOC is proposing — and did just fine. Since then tax rates have come way down, and if anything the economy has done less well.
Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data? Well, ask who benefits from low taxes on the rich, and it’s obvious.
And because the party’s coffers demand adherence to nonsense economics, the party prefers “economists” who are obvious frauds and can’t even fake their numbers effectively.
Krugman is a partisan hack.
I posted this already....effective tax rates are a bit lower than 50+ years ago....but not substantially.
It bears repeating for the millionth time....individual tax policy is not the driver of growing wealth inequality. It's technology and automation. And to a lesser extent globalization.
The reason I voted Dem for the first time in 2016 (and did likewise in 2018) was that I liked how Dems skewered Trump and the GOP for their commitment to policies based on emotion/ideology and not actual research/facts and when challenged on such matters, would resort to "whataboutism". Now with AOC, I fear that much of those same tactics used by Trump are also in use by her, only now just for a different cause. I mean when a reasonable question like "how are you going to pay for this all" is asked, instead of answering the question, she resorts to classic whataboutism "they never ask how they are going to pay for Space Force". Uhhhhh, OK, but that's not an answer Congresswoman, that's just a dodge.
I suppose if AOC, Trump or any other facts-challenged pols were proposing fairly moderate and unsubstantial policies, I guess I'd be more willing to overlook their lack of substantive knowledge of the issues as there really isn't much at stake. But when such Pols are suggesting sweeping and wholesale re-arrangments of the US economy, I'm less forgiving and am floored that others can be so casual about handing the keys to the kingdom to those who are so limited. I think there is a fair debate to have about what kind of economy we have and how we got to where we are as the richest country on Earth and how other systems have struggled/failed or alternatively thrived. But it takes serious people with serious knowledge of the facts to do that.
The good thing for AOC is that she's new to this. I mean how many of us were ready to be in the national spotlight at her age, having literally been tending bar just a year before? I do hope that she commits more time to understanding economic history and functionality as I do believe she is an intelligent person, but just needs some time to grasp what she's proposing. I suspect she will, or she may be another Bernie-type politician that has a large following on the hard-left, but never really breaks through to see her ideas seriously debated on the national stage.
I suppose if AOC, Trump or any other facts-challenged pols were proposing fairly moderate and unsubstantial policies, I guess I'd be more willing to overlook their lack of substantive knowledge of the issues as there really isn't much at stake. But when such Pols are suggesting sweeping and wholesale re-arrangments of the US economy, I'm less forgiving and am floored that others can be so casual about handing the keys to the kingdom to those who are so limited. I think there is a fair debate to have about what kind of economy we have and how we got to where we are as the richest country on Earth and how other systems have struggled/failed or alternatively thrived. But it takes serious people with serious knowledge of the facts to do that.
The good thing for AOC is that she's new to this. I mean how many of us were ready to be in the national spotlight at her age, having literally been tending bar just a year before? I do hope that she commits more time to understanding economic history and functionality as I do believe she is an intelligent person, but just needs some time to grasp what she's proposing. I suspect she will, or she may be another Bernie-type politician that has a large following on the hard-left, but never really breaks through to see her ideas seriously debated on the national stage.
Last edited:
When you find us the time machine that returns us to a world where the China and E Europe were still practice Communism, while Japan and S Korea were still in a growth stage, then give us a call.Krugman:
Look at the history of top marginal income tax rates (left) versus growth in real GDP per capita (right, measured over 10 years, to smooth out short-run fluctuations.):
What we see is that America used to have very high tax rates on the rich — higher even than those AOC is proposing — and did just fine. Since then tax rates have come way down, and if anything the economy has done less well.
Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data? Well, ask who benefits from low taxes on the rich, and it’s obvious.
And because the party’s coffers demand adherence to nonsense economics, the party prefers “economists” who are obvious frauds and can’t even fake their numbers effectively.
Key rule in econ: Competitive context matters.
Krugman is a partisan hack.
I posted this already....effective tax rates are a bit lower than 50+ years ago....but not substantially.
It bears repeating for the millionth time....individual tax policy is not the driver of growing wealth inequality. It's technology and automation. And to a lesser extent globalization.
I get why technology and automation make a difference in the middle class keeping up, but the problem isn't limited to them. People at the 90th percentile are people holding damn fine jobs, and they are being left in the dust by people in the 1%. So we are talking doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc. Expansion is happening between all percentiles. I am not sure why automation would hurt people at 98% more than at 99.
Populism - whether from the far right or far left - is always the same thing. Emotional based arguments trying to blame the proverbial boogeyman (immigrants, the rich, etc...) for society's ills.
Lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc.... all face threats due to tech and automation. You can get legal work done online (or just
purchase pre-made docs, legalzoom.com, etc), have a doctor consult online, robots are performing surgeries, etc. Accountants have more and more of their work done by their software system, etc....
Having a professional job isn't owning capital. All you own is a job that may become more and more obsolete (or at least cheaper).
I agree it will take more than increasing taxes on the wealthy. However, making the code more progressive is more important than increasing the rate.
I think most people agree we have a struggling middle class. We changed the rate. We gave them a tax cut. But fundamentally what good does that do, if it's followed by interest rate hikes? Essentially, we reduced government revenue, to have the fed collect it (in a sense). Is the middle class better off in the long run? Is the treasury? When discussing rates, people too often think about the impact of the individual, without taking into account the impact of the group(bracket). Especially over the long run. Money is relative.
In the distant future we will be arguing over the rates of distribution of wealth. That is what Congress will debate and control. The Fed or IRS will raise and lower tax rates, based on that mandate. Just like the Fed adjusts interest rates today.
