Not only did Eisenhower have a 90% marginal tax rate, it was also the last time a republican balanced the national budget. He also famously spoke about how runaway military spending would destroy our nation from the inside by denying our people necessary services in lieu of contractor profits. We won't add $65 bill./yr for tuition but we'll add $80bill/yr. for military?
oggyreidmore Yah she’s a brilliant economist. Evidence of this in her strong interviews so far. Really? If you knew anything about economics you would say she’s a moron. 70% tax on over $10 million means I make $10 million in a year and I quit. Thats economics. People are lazy and don’t care, take away the large sums of money and people stop producing. This can be seen in every socialist country that inevitably ends up failing. Just because you put democratic in front of it means nothing..... see as evidence “democratic nazi” you are all fools!
Okay. Then quit after making $10 million! Forgive me for not shedding a tear that you can't figure out how to budget your life with over $1000 per minute for one year. The only reason I don't cry is because someone else will gladly step in and take over your job for you and fall over themselves with euphoria to make 1/10th of what you made to do the same job - and the economy and production will continue to function just as it did before, but without your greedy ass! the good news is, you still will be okay. That $10 mill should last you 65 years, assuming you only live on 75 grand a year for the rest of your life (well above median income) - and that includes annual raises for inflation!
Okay, now put that into context. The 42% is their effective tax rate with a 91% marginal tax rate. Today they pay about 17% effective tax rate with a 39% marginal tax rate. They pay 60% less than what they did before (17 is 60% less than 42, 39 is about 60% less than 91). Not only that, but corporate tax rates have gone from 33% of the total tax revenue down to 10%, while payroll taxes have gone from 11% to 33% of total revenue. In other words, the rich pay less and corporations shifted the tax burden to you. They keep the profits of your production and you get the losses. High taxes force companies and the rich to reinvest their money into worker pay and business development in order to get tax deductions. If they have low taxes, it encourages them to cash out and keep the money for themselves. It also encourages them to cash out stocks and real estate holdings - which is why tax cuts are always followed by crashes and bailouts.
I love that she frames everything in terms of societal philosophy. What do we really want for our society? Important questions to ask and build policy around.
Yash Patil the rich we speak of their intrinsic value to society and what they deserve. Speaking to who what wants based on what they make is a gross simplification and what society wants doesn’t change what works but society can work in many different ways. It isn’t a math problem, there isn’t only one answer and human nature isn’t immutable.
Yash Patil but by seeing socialism as a number you fail to see the shades of grey where it is always present in our society. The fire department, police, roads, and every other shared resource is socialism. It probably can’t be sustained but neither can capitalism or our current understanding of the nature of man. They are always shifting and we do the best we can with what we have knowing that it is never perfect and never enough.
Yash Patil it’s free for many because they don’t pay taxes. The homeless use emergency services and never pay taxes, among many other examples. Socialism is happening all the time.
Yash Patil they 5 options, they can go into debt and they can create more money. Your opinion that the schemes are worthless is merely your opinion. Many are comfortable spending the money on the military, another socialist concept because it promotes our shared national security. There is no perfect answer, but don’t act like you have it right and she is just deluded. She and many other Americans have different priorities and they want the governments spending and tax policy to reflect those priorities.
Yah she’s a brilliant economist. Evidence of this in her strong interviews so far. Really? If you knew anything about economics you would say she’s a moron. 70% tax on over $10 million means I make $10 million in a year and I quit. Thats economics. People are lazy and don’t care, take away the large sums of money and people stop producing. This can be seen in every socialist country that inevitably ends up failing. Just because you put democratic in front of it means nothing..... see as evidence “democratic nazi” you are all fools!
@@Joshua-vf3bm, How many people are making over $10 million a year? I think even the majority of people making $10 million are making well over that amount of money.
I still remember when i first learned about marginal tax in economics in college and thought, "huh, this tool could actually stablise overall socioeconomic disparities and potentially solve poverty" Then my brain went "cool story bro, but we need to cram whats in this whole book for exams tomorrow. Chop chop"
@@armingleiner5292 Obviously, Mohd is talking about raising the highest tax-rate - are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending? Just checking. KKKaren...
@@jimbrown341 If a tax cut of a few percent increased the deficit by trillions, imagine doubling that rate but as revenue. Make no mistake about the math, just 3 people have more money than the poorest 50% of the USA.
@@jimbrown341 when you consider how much more than 10 million the ultra rich make, it becomes a huge number. If someone's getting a salary of one billion, then the government would then get 70% of 990 million because they really don't need 990 million anyway.
@@jecr8623 But do you know what would happen, right? They would just push their money into tax haven countries or just simply leave the United States entirely/move their business to another country to have prosperity, which would leave our country in shambles. What happened when Trump become President? He lowered taxes for businesses and they all started to bring their money back into the United States in order to be taxed! lol, that was Apple, Microsoft, etc that were doing that. They simply said, "screw Obama's high tax rates for businesses, we will simply keep our money overseas until a new President lowers taxes". That's exactly what they did. These rich business owners know how to navigate the system. They are smarter than these dumb government officials. Ocasio Cortez is an idiot. Just listen to her speak about policy. She can't. If you ask her a specific question on how she would implement policy she has no idea how to answer it because she has no real plan. She's just a parrot who repeats what others are saying. She's not a free thinker.
It was actually funny the way Stephen asked the tax question. WHat's even funnier is that a 70% top marginal rate is still 23% LESS than the highest rate we've ever had, which was under Eisenhower. It's is worth noting because that was during a time of unprecedented economic expansion in the USA. Remember that when corporate shills try to tell you that increasing taxes on the wealthy will hurt the economy. The truth is exactly the opposite. Pushing more wealth DOWN the economic chain actually stimulates economic activity, while pushing wealth UP the chain stagnates economic activity. Concentrating wealth at the top will NEVER stimulate economic growth. Trickle down theory is the most sinister lie the right wing has ever sold to working class people.
"Trickle down theory is the most sinister lie the right wing has ever sold to working class people." - this right here exactly. Thank you. What is confounding is that, years on with verifiable proof it does not work, people still buy into it and vote against their own interests. The right-wing propaganda machine that created Fox News, and all that came after abolishing the Fairness Doctrine, work to keep them ignorant. Let's not even talk about how they've tried to cripple and twist education in furtherance of the same goal.
@FarmerMiyagi The wealthy and corporations have been hiding money in tax havens for decades, so why should anyone fear what is already happening? Legislators simply need to penalize those who engage in that shell game. It's not that difficult to track large amounts of money moving through the banking system, especially corporate profits, but most of our law makers are owned by the corporate interests they are supposed to be regulating. Hiding corporate profits is a problem because of the vast failure of American leadership to institute accountability. In any case, the USA is the most attractive market in the world and every corporation wants access to it. That's called leverage. The kind of ignorance and irrational fear you are harboring is why working class people, like yourself, vote against their own interests. You are wrong about everything.
@@dlg5485 What's the point of having a 91% marginal rate when there use to be more deductions and loopholes the wealthy used to avoid paying that high rate back in the day?
She's right. By the time you are earning $10,000,000 a year, your salary is just a way of keeping score. Every additional $1000 makes no difference to your life at all. But every extra $1000 to someone on minimum wage is like night and day. No one earning more than $10,000,000 a year is suddenly going to stop working because the tax rate on dollars after $10,000,000 is higher. This has been proven by decades of economics. Inequality right now is as bad as in the 1920s. It's grotesque and it is wrecking the country.
Look, most these people who earn this money have already said they would cap it... do you understand it? No. You don't. What that means is investment becomes crippled... job losses, businesses packing up and move and all kinds of restructuring... listen to those actually making the money instead of those looking at spending other people's money! Again, until you actually earn that kind of money, in such a position to employ many, invest in communities and businesses alike... don't comment on it.
I see what you you are saying but the country Did prosper more than it ever did under similar progressive tax rates so how did that happen if what you say is true? They are spending most of our taxes on weapons.. @@JosephGibson
@@JosephGibson You're wrong on a couple of points. 1.) It would make more sense to invest your excess money rather than hide it since as an investment it won't count as income and not subject to the higher tax. 2.) the tax is on individuals not corporations or businesses and clearly you have no clue as to what it would take to pack up a business and relocate or even just restructure. such decisions take years to develop and implement and often cost more than just staying put. Contrary to popular belief companies don't flee the country because of taxes they flee because of the cost of labor in the U.S. is significantly higher than most countries. Payroll is often the largest annual expenditure for most companies.
@@Jonatone If you're talking of the years of higher tax, no one paid those higher tax rates... anyone, especially those that were affected, would tell you that. This sort of thing is a disaster waiting to happen, if it were ever to be pass as legislation. Oh, and it wouldn't end there would it... these people like to tax, tax tax.
@@chrissantos5580 3 questions that I expect an honest and respectful answer to: 1 How was she bought by Netflix? 2 What political interest does Netflix have in this? 3 Why would you call a random person on the internet "sucker"? Greetings from someone who doesn't even live in a country that's "socialist" and still doesn't consider most of what AOC's demanding as "extreme" but very normal, common sense almost :) Have a nice day either answering, ignoring or ranting about my reply ✌️
@@angelic8632002 that's the same logic as "I am not racist, but..." Bernie Sanders is as old as many in Congress and he is also "fresh air." Don't be ageist, "little girl "
joseph I am currently studying Politics in the Netherlands after 19 years of living in the US. The Netherlands has many, many socialist policies that have done wonders. Universal health care, nearly-free education, etc... we need more of those socialist programs in the US (I believe that capitalism works, but socialist programs also work). How can you say you are “rational and normal” and then express your blatantly sexist feelings toward this person. At NO point, is she “screaming” or doing anything else than being extremely polite, charming, and level-headed about smart policy that would make America a better country, especially for its most vulnerable population.
After you make 10 million dollars, each dollar after that may be taxed at 70% which is still less than the 90% rate it would have been taxed during "the good ole days" Republicans keep idealizing as the best time in American history (the 1950s-1970's) where we had tremendous economic growth and you could support a family of four on just one income and with booming infrastructure, etc. Republicans say they want to go back to this time, well, it's wasn't cheap and it wasn't free.
@FroggerM3 Funny thing is, it's just a lovely little argument.. but why then haven't employment increased since taxes were slashed? Why have wages stagnated while corporate profits have soared? You point at 70 year old history and ignore 30 year old history, and use a "what if" scenario to excuse a hard example of what's actually happened.
@FroggerM3 The thing is we need to start talking about it now. Not keep the current system and continue to wonder what could be. We know our current system DO NOT WORK so why continue the crap. People with the "what if it doesn't workout" attitude never progress.
A few decades ago the typical CEO was paid 4 or 5 times the average salary/wage of his company's employees. Today that factor is 50 or more. That is just one metric that illustrates the gross disparity of wealth that currently exists in America. And that disparity is the result of Republican "trickle down" policies that do nothing but make the rich richer while decimating the middle class. And without a large, thriving middle class, capitalism will collapse.
Firstly, owning a business is much more impressive than being an employee (most of the time). I think its sensible that someone who has worked hard for years creating recipes, trying to stand out, and putting sweat and blood into a company's success should be played way way way more than someone with no degree or education becoming a casheer. Also a lot of that money is given to the employees. That is how they are paid. Capitalism works because it makes it easier to start a business and start working. It also makes employees want to work harder, and be more competitive, because of how they're pay checks will differ. Differ as intellectual individuals.
Thats because the companies are now larger, larger than ever before One can argue, perhaps that that means the company valued higher makes more and can thus give more to employees but for one thing, larger companies also means more employees at more levels, and also more tech (thanks to scientific advancements), so everyone only gets so much Even if the CEO earns a ridiculous amount in comparison to the average employee, not only have they also done that amount of work (unless it was inherited, which again, most huge companies are not, ex : bezos, gates), but have also usually come up with evolutionary ideas and managed it with honed business acumen And again Capitalism is about the market And the market is about profit Messing with those rich people (usually deserving people) Not a good idea What incentive does that leave them? If ridiculous amounts of their income is taxed like that? Why wouldn't they just move headquarters abroad? That will take away jobs and be ultimately damaging to the middle class
This means nothing. What matters is weather or not there is still wealth mobility which you have not addressed with data or facts. You're the accuser, the burden is on you to prove your charge
She made it sound like the 1% can keep the first 10 mil for themselves, and then the $ after that gets taxed 70%. In my common sensical understanding the $ (say 7 - 10 mil) also gets taxed a certain %, and then the bracket below that (say 2-5 mil) gets taxed a certain %. Am I correct. If so, fuck yeah I'd be pissed off getting taxed 70% when I had already paid like 50% on my 7-10 mil, and 35% on 2-5 million.
@@ogyen7 Yes, this is not as easy as she makes it sound. Not all multi millionaires made their money stealing from the middle and lower class. That is a fantasy. Some actually deserve the wealth they accumulate
@@ogyen7 The top marginal rates are less meaningful in terms of net income after taxes than the effective tax rate. Using your hypothetical marginal rates, a person making $10 million would pay an effective rate of 42.5% on their entire income, with a take home of $5.75 million. A person making $20 million would pay an effective rate of 56.25% on their entire income, with a take home of $8.75 million. So you're saying if you were able to make an income of almost nine million dollars a year... you'd be pissed?
This totally works. After the great depression in 1930 the super rich were taxed at 90% and the economy was booming... Untill Reagan gave giant taxcuts to the super rich.
Actually the economy boomed after the Great Depression once America got involved with WW2.. more jobs were created to support the military.. more jobs=more money flowing=better economy
But we were spending borrowed money - debt to GDP went through the roof. The primary reason the economy did well after that was that everyone's else's production capacity was destroyed. But by Carter's time, the economy was in a shambles - other countries had caught up and our high tax and liberal welfare policies along with wage and price controls created a large welfare class and a lot of self-entitled workers were producing shoddy goods in American factories (compare Honda to GM at the time). That is why Reagan was elected. His breaking of unions, privatization of industries and lower tax rates set the ground work the economic success under Clinton. Then his return to American military strength led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and our reduction in need for Military spending plus new trade opportunities in a cold-war-less world solidified the economic boom under Clinton.
Vincent Krommenhoek - 1.) Nobody paid the 90% tax rate because there were tons of loopholes. (2.) There were no state income taxes back then. (3) Property taxes were 10% of what they are now. (4) State sales taxes were a fraction what they are today. I guess you and Occasional Cortex are also too stupid to realize that if she ever implemented her confiscatory 70% tax rate, that the IRS would collect even LESS tax revenue. Why? Because history (and common sense) has shown us that when you amend the tax laws to soak the super-rich, that they, in turn, change their behaviors and use some loophole in the tax laws to get out of it. Rich people have the ability to consult with financial experts and lawyers to do precisely that. For example, bigmouth pro tax-hike billionaire Warren Buffet talks a big game on TV about how he wants people like himself taxed at a higher rate than his secretary. But then Buffet himself fails to disclose that he only takes a salary of $500,000/year from Berkshire Hathaway.... and chooses to take most of his compensation through stock options which is taxed at the much lower marginal gains rate (20%). He specifically does that to get around paying the higher taxes that salaries are subjected to. Only stupid people playing checkers instead of chess - people like bartender Occasional Cortex - don't know that. And Colbert, turns out, is a Koolaid drinking sycophant with the interviewing skills of an aardvark.
@@humanrights7086 im just going to assume you didn't see the humor in the paradox that all the people i listed .. were vehement anti communist and yet all of them had higher marginal tax rates and that maybe high tax rates arent all that socialist if all these vehemently anti communist people were also for them... my point was that high taxes isn't socialistic .. its just common sense... or put another way .. its the price you pay for a civilized society .. and also you know ...you get what you pay for ... p.s so as i was writing thing it struck me as being long and boring .. but at the same time i couldn't be arsed to find a better way to say it so i apologies for that .. what also while typing this i had i thought of starting again and writing something else .. so for you're enjoyment the following is what could have been response one .. you do realize it is a joke right? reponce two.. that's Mr. FirefoxIII .SR .Phd .MD .CID .MIA .CIA .BSS .BS .SSC .BSc .ADHD .BBC .GOVT .LMNOP .IM RUNNING OUT OF IDEAS . HELP . STOP. to you ya young whippersnapper :P
Well, we didn't "lead" in the space race, as Russia both launched the first satellite around the earth, and the first manned orbit around the moon. It was LBJ who oversaw the first moon landing.
@Yash Patil "SoCialisM DoEsN't WoRk" What? Almost all countries in the world apply socialism but only with varying degrees, which includes the US. Also, if you think that way, don't get your pension, because pension is socialized. There are more things that are socialized, don't fucking get them also. Also, no. MIC is very different from the Homefront. The Homefront enriched the people because almost all of the population was employed by them, while MIC just enriches the company and the people behind them.
@Yash Patil socialism is working in differnet countries right now. Denmark are the most socialist country and guess which coutry has the happiest citizens... DENMARK!
Perfect solution to the poverty issue: 70% tax on any tax bracket above 10million dollars a year is not unreasonable. Senator Ocasio-Cortez is making a very good point about living in excess in our society, and how it has become toxic to the fabric of the ecology. What's absolutely beautiful about her approach to social media, is that she's endorsing authenticity for her fellow Democrats.
As people have pointed out, her figure is scaled to be more acceptable for the views of today - under FDR and Truman the top marginal rate was 90% and the top bracket was equivalent to $3 million. I think she's done a good job with those rates. And to think, in a country with so many billionaires, top marginal rate is somewhere around $600K at the moment!
... she's not a Senator... she's a Congresswoman. Geesh, people are soooooo dumbed down. They can't spell or even speak without "like" and voice fry...AOC is the future...get your facts straight...she does...and she knows the difference between the House and Senate...
Sure tax that high because someone makes more than you think they should. Why should you steal 70% just because they have more. If you make more than me, am I entitled to 70% of what you have after a certain point?
I know some people in America think her views are completely über over the top crazy, but really there are parts of the world where her discourse sounds like just the ordinary amount of normal and sensible.
Amélie Carré here in Scandinavia her thoughts sound right wing. Even the right wing of our most capitalist party in Finland believe in free health care and education.
@@anttikalpio4577 Not really true though, Finland isn't in Scandinavia. Marginal tax rate of employees in Norway is 46% without insurance and 53% with insurance.
@@stevenbrock528 Nah, it just means that many outsiders are often inaccurate. Finnish isn't even in the same language group as Swedish, Danish and Norwegian (although Icelandic is).
@@dechen3432 What do you mean? She was born in October 1989, which means she'll be 35 by October 2024, well before inauguration day. Is the math wrong?
hefftatious, she is clueless when it comes to the economy and how the world works. I think she has the right intentions to try and better peoples lives, however..nothing in life is free. Her plans on paying for stuff will ruin this country and it will turn into a third world socialist nation if she had her way. America is great because of capitalism, not socialism. Socialism takes away all human ambition and free will and leaves nations ruined with death and poverty. Try and research her policies on conservative sites and not just left wing sites and you will have her nonsense explained a little better.
@@alexocasio-gomez5267 Al Sharpton is worth 1/2 million dollars compare to Kenneth Copeland who's nett worth is $760M but I can see what agenda you pushing... All I'm saying is whoever makes millions in the name of the Lord should be taxed accordingly because this has become a business instead of a church in many cases.
No one paid those rates, buddy. You probably never paid a lick of federal income taxes in your life so you probably don't understand the implications of a tax structure.
@@stevenbrock528 My parents were born in the 50's and worked during those years. They were allowed to deduct expenses for every little thing. Ate out? That could be deducted. So practically every wealthy or smart person was deducting all their income. It's not a claim - it's a fact.
@@OceanSprayX WOW! Did your parents make $200,000 or $1.8 million adjusted to today's prices from 1953 because that's when eisenhower's marginal tax rate took into effect. If wealthy individuals decide to spend to spend into the economy through deduction to avoid the marginal rate it only grows the economy helping businesses and small restaurant owners along the way.
JESUS CHRIST. *That's because after WWII there's was NO ONE TO MANUFACTURE THINGS* *WE WERE THE ONLY ONES* I can't believe how idiotic you all are. They didn't pay 90%. They didn't declare ALL OF THEIR INCOME! *JFK KNEW THIS AND HE LOWERED TAXES*
She's got ya. Just remember, she's a politician. I agree with you, she's absolutely adorable looking, but she's a smart one as well. Keep that guard up to read between the lines of speech with a politician.
Especially that the majority of US citizens cant make a difference between communism and socialism. And that her ideas are tame compared to what was done in the 30's or post war periods (even by Republican standards).
Same here! I believe the American people is (are?) lucky to have her as a Representent. An honest, eloquent and passionate politician is a rare thing in our world.
A person who makes 10 million dollars a year could theoretically spend $1,000 dollars per hour, twenty-four hours a day, 7 days a week, every week for an entire year and still have well over a million dollars to spare. Take this one step further a billionaire could do this same thing for a hundred years and still have more that 120 million dollars leftover. No one needs to be that rich. It's sickening.
tackless They deserve it. They earned it. It is theirs and you have absolutely no right to claim as much as a penny. Because bottom line is you don’t deserve it.
@@Monk-Gaming haha taxes don't go directly to him.(are you trying to make misleading statements) we all owe taxes to the government(for infrastucture and so many more things). I think 70& on everything over 10 million is a great starting point for some real negotiations.
@@Monk-Gaming Greed my friend. And most of them earned it On The Backs of their laborers who it would take a lifetime for them to earn what some of these people make in a month or less . Greed there is no bigger sin no matter what Gordon Gekko says.
tackless a person making $10 million a year currently pays between $3 and $4 million in federal income tax a year if its all earned income (wages). There is also social security( 6.2% which only applies to your first $117k of income), Medicare (1.45%), and state income taxes (0-13%) which they have to pay. So someone who makes $10 million a year is super rich (only ~10,000 people made more in 2017) but we have to concede that those people are paying ~40% of there income in taxes currently and don’t just have it all to spend if we want to be credible in advocating for an increase.
@@jamesdavis660 in theory, yeah. But they don't. Studies have shown the ultra rich, when all their tax shelters have been utilized, pay a tax rate of around 13%. Too many loopholes for the rich.
@@MrHazyDayz Come on. Troll harder, little troll. How about Germany? How about northern Europe? How about America, when America was actually successful?
@@Giby86 Germany? Northern Europe? They are falling to Islamic law, they will be under Sharia within our lifetimes. What are you even talking about? America was successful before 1965 when the country was 90%+ white. Diversity has nearly wrecked our nation.
Giby86: Well, many Americans ONLY watch Fox News and when Fox News implies if you make $30,000 a year, AOC wants 70% of THAT (or 21,000) to go to Taxes, leaving you with only 9,000, you can see how that would be a problem. Fox "News" people like Sean Hannitty only know how to LIE - like when they said Germany has more Solar Power than the U.S. because it's SUNNIER in Germany! An easily disproved LIE than serves the interests of Big Oil!
@KamekoBruns False. On average, very rich individuals (both red and blue) outspend trade unions by a very large margin. In the 2016 elections, trade unions spent a total of $132 million. Contrast that with $757 million by the extremely wealthy. A single corporation/multibillionaire can outspend any single trade union easily. Furthermore, trade unions represent the actual workers. Their members are the lower and middle class. They don't own yachts or private islands. Their power comes from numbers, not from wealth. It's funny how you see them as enemies. Unless your family is filthy rich, trade unions represent us. Trade unions are basically our pathetic attempt at trying to match the overwhelming political influence of the elites. As for blue or red money, it matters WHICH companies they are. The ones most likely to fund red are the ones who have the most to gain from regulation cuts. Oil, gas, timber, chemical, coal, medical. They're the ones most likely to harm the public if allowed to. Of course some fund blue, but unless Democrats start pushing for tax cuts or allowing them to dump toxic waste into rivers, it's a non-issue. I'd rather NONE of them had any political influence whatsoever. Corporations are not people. They don't have the same motivations as people, neither are they affected the same way as people. Treating them as people is absurd. They don't worry about drinking water, or whether they can pay the bills, or whether there's enough food to eat. They're driven by one thing and one thing only: profit.
Reaganomics really screwed us over. I hope we get back on track when it comes to marginal tax rates, among other investments in growing the middle class and creating healthier, vibrant communities.
@Anthony Nazaradeh it’s unsurprising this person wouldn’t know how considering Reagan reversed the awful economic policies of Carter. Reagan raise rates to curb inflation which lead to high rise in real median income per capita. It’s nice to use fancy words like OP to avoid the data that’s easy to find
I like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 70% tax on all rich folks with incomes starting at beyond $10 million a year. Nobody needs to be making that much money. Folks like Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Roger Goodell, Ryan Seacrest, and Mary Barra will be affected. And The Donald, with incomes from sources other than his Presidency, will really be affected. It's time for The Donald to pay his fair share of taxes. Nobody NEEDS their own helipad, which is an unnecessary luxury.
People need money to be able to innovate and create businesses or products, which in turn creates more money for everyone. A billionaire with a helicopter can save time and use that time to help create corporations that employ thousands. Cutting rich folks money = no motivation for them to work Giving the benefits to everyone else = no reason for them to work either. Will that not happen?
@@terrylunsford352 She's smarter than you'll ever be. Including your progeny because, well, they will be afflicted with the same mental disorder as you.
That's why she needs the people to be on her side, to cheer on her right choices, and hold her feet to the fire if she starts to listen to the establishment.
@@datruth7038 no it would not. We had 90% marginal tax rates in the 50's and our GDP grew at 10%, highest growth rate we've had during trump has been 4%
5 лет назад
There are two types of Republicans: The Rich and The Stupid. Check your wallet, which one are you?
Please read Broken Government - Author John W. Dean, Legal Adviser of the Republican President Richard Nixon …”The Republican agenda has proven itself to be an agenda of special interests rather than of the public interests, the scheme of a party whose primary aim is to maintain its power whatever the cost …” Washington Post remarked, “At its core, the book argues that the growing power of social and neo-conservatives within the Republican Party has created an army of guileless followers…”
Rich Grant don’t categorize people in their political party to two types. It’s disrespectful, stupid, wrong, and continues to divide our nation. I am a republican. I’m not rich. I’m not dumb. I just believe in republican beliefs. That doesn’t make me one of those two things. I say this with respect and dignity for your political beliefs. As they are your opinions just as I have mine. Always respect others and don’t judge people so easily and disrespectfully.
Alejandro Z Also, back in the 50’s, when the tax rate for the rich was 90%, the only way avoid it was to reinvest in American business. THAT’S why back in the 50’s and 60’s the American Dream of a house, 2 cars, and 2.5 kids was attainable on minimum wage. Because CEO’s had to take the money they earned and put it back in, either building new factories, wage increases, or improving existing facilities. It was in the 1980’s, under Reagan that this tax went away under the Trickle Down Economics theory. Once the rich were allowed to keep their money, that’s when businesses began closing factories and moving them. Wages stopped going up unless Washington or your State forced them to rise. Then the middle class began to vanish.
I was pleasantly surprised at how reasonable and well formed her ideas were. The way they are preaented in headlines is wildly different than what I see here.
She is very articulate and actually seeks to educate the audience because her policies and ideas are good. I'm sick of the yelling and name-calling that distracts from real ideas and issues.
Just made a calculation. There are 205 people in US who make >$50M a year in salary. If we use 70% marginal tax rule, using $50 M as the number to calculate, $40M times 70% times 205 people, we get $5.7B tax dollars just from these 205 people. And this is a heck of a lot of money for the government to spend on healthcare and education and bridges and roads, etc. Correct me if my calculation is wrong.
Being Fooled that isn’t a lot of money, US annual revenue is 3.44 TRILLION, universal Medicare is estimated at 1.25 TRILLION. I’m all for taxing at 70% at over $10 million but people need to understand if they want universal healthcare and college everyone making over $60 THOUSAND is going to have to pay more in taxes
For around 45 years, wages have stagnated, corporate profits are at record highs despite the world economy. All this unfettered free market capitalism in the US and you're like 19 trillion in debt.
Id suggest you go look at the GDP and stock market graphs over the last 45 years. The 19 trillion debt in the USA is federal debt, and not private. Anything else stupid you want to state?
@@imNotYourDad8000 Its an average assessment and seeing as wage growth , employment growth, and employment participation growth have grown.... WTF are you assessing as a person as doing? Yours own pathetic loser life? That isnt a well recognized measurement you fucktard!
Wages have stagnated because the owners/bosses/corporations have captured All of US workers' gains in productivity in the last 45 years.. Nothing to do with the number of workers. As workers aren't earning enough to compensate them fairly for their labor, they don't have enough to spend and thus make the real economy work. All their confiscated productivity gains are squandered on a few luxury items for the elites and even more, in financial get-even-richer deals that turn in the void, and are unproductively squirreled away in tax havens.
@Stanisław Śmierćyk yeh, I was a fairly smart guy til I started supporting democrats. Now i just want to dig holes for a living.
5 лет назад
AOC has brought a new light of hope, and this is only the beginning. “You can’t stop the change, any more than you can stop the suns from setting.” - Shmi Skywalker
if too many follow her...America will be lost in debt and poverty pity the masses that get fooled by her feel good speeches and crazy unattainable ideas
@@Logan-py8we Spending money like drunken sailors? Who's proposing that? The Green New Deal would take decades to reach its eventual cost, spending 3.1% of our entire GDP on the military is ridiculous. I need to take a class on economics? Literally any businessman that is more interested in the people than himself will tell you otherwise. It is 100% in our best interest, and if you aren't making 10 million a year then it would benefit you immensely overtime, so why are you complaining?
I’m astounded at how many people in the comments still don’t understand the 70% marginal tax rate that she’s proposing. Billions of dollars spent on the American educational system and it has failed all of you. 🤦🏻♀️
@just some ninja shit So, to be clear, you think (taxation aside) that it is reasonable and fair that CEOs of companies in America earn $30, $40, even $100m a year. What possible justification is there for that sort of pay? Is Brendan Kennedy (Tilray) worth $256m a year? Is Bob Iger (Disney) worth £146m, is Tim Cook worth $141m? Is Sean Hannity worth $40m, in addition to the massive income he gets from his property portfolio? Well, they may or may not be "worth" that amount, but it does not seem totally crazy to tax them at higher rates than you or I.
@@tn_onyoutube8436 I see where youre getting at but do we really need their money? or since we live in a capitalist society cant we just work hard enough to be financially independent? I personally believe America gives you all the tools to be successful you just have to want it.
da truth - I in turn see what you are saying. But not everyone can be king, not everyone can be the boss, not everyone can get all the good jobs. Sure, if you are lucky enough or determined enough to get a good education you can get a good job, and if you work hard and get lucky from there you can earn huge money, or even just great money. But the point is, by definition it is impossible for everyone to be in that situation, and also it is an insult to millions to conflate “hard work” to financial riches. I pretty much guarantee you that in terms of real hard work many people at the lower end work way harder than many of those people you would cite as hard workers. As AOC mentions briefly in this very interview, people who have to work two or three jobs, as maybe cleaners, packers in a warehouse, workers in a fast food shop - all jobs needed by society - get paid so poorly they have to work 80, 100 hours a week just to survive. Education, especially in America, is unbelievably costly. If you come from a family that for generations has never had anyone to go to a decent college or even any college at all, they will look at the costs of school and just not even try. And they probably go to a high school that does not get enough funds, or has so many underprivileged kids that the pupils have almost no change of getting to college anyway, even cheaper or free community colleges, from which a degree is almost worthless if you expect to. Get really rich off it. And another point is the simple fact that 4 more years not earning any money, even if poor money, might not be an option. And, as I said, economies don’t just need leaders and executives- McDonalds management earn 10s of millions, but they would not even have a business if hundreds of thousands of workers did not work at minimum wage in their stores. I actually think the better answer than higher taxes is to not need them in the first place. And that means sharing some of the ridiculously high remuneration for the top management of these companies with their workers, and when I say sharing, I mean paying them more, and the management less. I repeat my point from above, how can any single management individual, with the possible exception of a founder key visionary like Musk, Jobs, Gates, be worth the pay of 3000 of his workers, or more in some cases, how can the lady who runs the Apple shops for a couple years be worth 50m dollars. Better education, more education opportunities, fairer minimum wages, more rewards for good work for the little guy, that is fair, and it is not socialism. Yet. But if the gap between rich and poor stays this big and gets bigger, and the ridiculous notion that everyone who is not a wealthy as the very wealthy are lazy good for nothing spongers (British term), then ultimately socialism may have to be the answer, and we all know that is not good either.
I guess if folks don't understand the 70% marginal tax rate due to our educational system, then maybe it's time we moved on from socialist funded schools (the state) to private schools (capitalism), what say you now?
@@filthycade2399 You're projecting. You despise yourself. Now look in the mirror and say, "I'm good enough. I'm smart enough and gosh darnit people like me". You'll feel better, eventually.
Shes bat shit crazy and has no idea what she is talking about and lies about her upbringing to fool her constituency. If all someone has is that they are a politician then they are full of it.
Intelligent? Too funny. Educated maybe but not intelligent. And a liar, yes. And she is regurgitating old, failed policy. Finally, put any one of the following: Candace Owens, Kayleigh McEnany, Nikki Haley, Scherie Murray or Kim Klacik alone with AOC and four of AOC's best supporters, and AOC and team won't have a chance. Yes, one against AOC and team.
Her comment about helipads for billionaires and 80 hour work weeks for the starving masses, accurately describes the current conditions I saw in Bangalore India. I totally support the idea of working hard, being innovative and hopefully getting rich. What we have in the US is so far beyond that, billionaires making back-end deals to preserve their monopolies, $600 Epi pens, etc... Unlimited political bribery is legal at the federal level. It needs to stop. With the exception of Bill Gates, most billionaires help no one but themselves. They're like financial black holes swallowing all resources at faster and faster rates leaving as little as possible for the rest of us.
The combined fortunes of the world's 26 richest individuals reached $1.4 trillion last year - the same amount as the total wealth of the 3.8 billion poorest people.
@@simonb4689 oh sorry, the point was that the combined fortunes of the world's 26 richest individuals reached $1.4 trillion last year - the same amount as the total wealth of the 3.8 billion poorest people. Was that not clear?
It really does and has precedence. As she said this isnt an outlandish and insane hypothetical. This has been done before to amazing success. I'm not sure I understand the mentality that the super rich should be sympathized for while the middle, lower, and even upper class can just be thrown by the wayside to fend for proverbial (or sometimes literal) scraps. I understand that all, or atleast a majority of us strive to be in that "super rich" category but the fact is; none if us are. I also understand that those people that are in that group shouldnt be punished but it gets to an point where they're only there at the expense of everyone else. And it just blows my mind that so many so called "blue collar" people of Middle-America scoff at that idea when theyve been living in it for most or all of their lives...
@madcheeseknight when did I say, of even slightly imply "if you dont give all of your money to the government, you hate poor people"? I didnt. My point is that this specifically is exactly not that, and its, frankly, common sense when you have people making 100's of millions a year in the same city as people that work 70 hour weeks and go hungry and a wealth gap that's steadily increasing... theres just no excuse for that. The "work harder" argument is nonsensical and if they arent willing to help out the people that allowed then to get to where they are then something needs to be done...
@madcheeseknight and also just throwing this out there, since you're far from the only person I've seen describe her as a socialist and this policy being socialist... shes not, and it's not. I'm going to implore you to just do a quick google of socialism vs democratic socialism. It might sound like a small distinction and I dont blame you in the slightest for confusing the two and you would be somewhat correct atleast in theory.. but it's quite a large distinction in reality. In theory it's just a footnote added onto the bottom of a term paper, in reality it's just as black and white as the distinction between Venezuela and Norway. Ever wonder why liberals dont like labels? This is exactly the reason. Putting a label onto something only opens the floodgates of misinformation, scapegoats, false dichotomies and a whole host of other nonsense to create an entirely fictional argument... much like you've just done by saying "socialism doesnt work"... that's a cool story, but completely unrelated to the argument, couldve said "beef is better than chicken" or "green is a better color than yellow" and it would have exactly the same effect in the discussion...
This is why I am truly in love with Colbert he only had her on there so she can literally say what was going on with the 70% CNN MSNBC Fox News ABC CBS channels can all suck on it
madcheeseknight lol those companies employ lots of republicans, even former trump employees, and they hate non corrupt democrats and republicans, they love the establishment of both parties. That’s why they love the shitty neocon republicans so much. That’s what people don’t understand, it’s much moreso establishment bias, but yeah fox is conservative biased, msnbc is dem establishment biased, most the others are just straight establishment or even centrist biased imo. They’re all trash
She's the type of person I would vote to be president. And she wouldn't need to say she's a woman every 2 seconds like others *cof cof*. She's just an honest, serious person.
João Campelos Ferreira : #Bernie2020❤️✊🏾🌎✌🏾💯 He told everyone to run because we need a gutsy and fearless team. If he wins, she can be speaker of the house, or Senator, and we can make it happen. Get involved...we need you, come in because the water’s warm.
Yes! Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Alison Lundergran Grimes of Kentucky would make a dynamite duo! AOC/ALG 2024!!!! MAPA(Make America Progressive Again)!
R McElhaney I don’t think Alison Lundergan Grimes is progressive. Didn’t she refuse to say whether or not she voted for Obama in that senate race a few years ago?
@Dewaldt Well taking a massive amount of the countries wealth and running out the country with it, should be seen as treason and any country that does not deport them back to America to face their crimes, will be heavily sanctioned or if need be go to war for being complicit in those crimes as well. Guarantee you Cayman Islands gonna send those motherfuckers back real quick. If thats too extreme for you, then you could simply nullify all dollar bills that they own, by stating the ID's of their dollars are no longer actually dollar bills, therefore their money is worthless to everyone around the world, because it isnt recognized by our goverment anymore. Boom simple.
people don't realize that 70% marginal tax rate for your 10,000,000th dollar still equates to around 57% total income tax, meaning you'll only be left with around 4,3 million dollars
Something tells me Ocasio-Cortez has already found her man. I just hope he's not a Republican. Meghan McCain became pro-Trump after marrying a rich conservative writer, Ben Domenech. Even though Trump despised Meghan's father.
Lol, yet for rich people Marginal Rate = Effective Rate because their incomes are so high. The problem is that the rich actually never paid a 90% or 70% rate, they always paid an average of around 42% because of all the deductibles that were available. The rich aren't actually paying much less than they used to in the 1950's. It's totally bunk math and completely ignores all the research that is out there. Maybe you should actually look at the numbers provided by the tax department, instead of listening to political slogans from politicians.
Robert Butacu - not true. Only their companies can minimise tax rates but individual income taxes are practically impossible to avoid unless you move to Monaco yourself. You ought to look into the actual law lol…
Brian Cheng actually marginal tax rate and effective tax rate are two different things. Marginal is the rate paid on the last dollar of income earned. Effective is the average rate paid on all income earned.
@@JakeFace0 In 1992 under Clinton, the govt. averaged getting 67 cents on the dollar for a dollar taxed. Bureaucrats consumed the other 1/3 via collection, administration costs, ineptitude in purchases of goods and services, and, corruption. Much worse now.
@@arkansaslibertarian688 How's the free market working in the healthcare sector, the #1 reason for individuals and families going bankrupt in modern America? It drove 10,500,000+ people into poverty in 2016 alone. The free market at work.
She's speaking to her constituents...telling them things they want to hear...young and naive...the majority of the extraordinarily wealthy people in this country worked very hard to get there...and they are the most philanthropic...
So all those hard working people who worked for their money 70% of their money is taxed and gone. I’d like to see everyone be so happy about giving away their money.
did you not watch the video? She explained that she wants to tax the money you make after you reach over 10 dollars. If you make over 10 million dollars a year you going to be fine.
Please read Broken Government - Author John W. Dean, Legal Adviser of the Republican President Richard Nixon …”The Republican agenda has proven itself to be an agenda of special interests rather than of the public interests, the scheme of a party whose primary aim is to maintain its power whatever the cost …” Washington Post remarked, “At its core, the book argues that the growing power of social and neo-conservatives within the Republican Party has created an army of guileless followers…”
Friends, In the ’90s, CT scrapped taxpayers’ flat income tax for a “tax on the rich” that was sold as magic pill for “middle-class tax relief.” Instead, job creation fell, the state’s labor force shrank, and the state’s poverty rate increased. In California voters were persuaded to pass the Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, Proposition 30. It turned out the taxes were neither temporary nor did they fund education in the way voters expected. The rates are still in place and a Stanford University public policy expert determined all the education funding went to pensions rather than classrooms. Ocasio-Cortez grossly oversimplifies the complex political system and the economic and social relations between political actors.
I finnally looked up “what the heck is AOC?” and me being like “clearly they talk about her enough that they needed to shorten it, not sure of other reps that get such treatment.”
3:16 Bigger is better, I myself have 18 Porsches and Ferraris. It's the American way - From a Briton who is living in America. Let the American people keep their hard earned money
Now we just need another push of fearless democratic socialist candidates in 2020 to help these ideas reach critical mass 💪🏼💅🏼👩🏻⚖️👩🏼⚖️👩🏽⚖️👩🏾⚖️👩🏿⚖️
She never said the world was going to end, she said global warming is going to devastate the Earth within 12 years. This is a fact, and it is happening right now not 12 years.
i think such taxation can be made over consumption rather than over income, if I buy a luxury jet or a penthouse worth 100 ml dollar (like the one michael dell bought) I should be taxed at this rate...so if the super rich wants to live in a super rich way, they can do so by means of paying higher tax
Great idea, it's called the "Fair tax" Politicians would never go for it because it strips them of any power they wield. It would also eliminate lobbyist and the IRS. Yet nothing would be more fair and benefit every social economic class in the country.
Pretty bad when the government gets to decide who makes too much money. I can't imagine anyone (especially people with millions of dollars to pay accountants and tax lawyers) finding ways around paying it....
FYI, all these are distinct, although they share some common traits: socialist, social democrat, democratic socialist, national socialist (nazi), etc...
It makes sense - people spending money (which is taxed a bit in every step) is what keeps the economy going. Rich people simply do not produce taxes by spending (putting it all in a fund does not really increase living standards, in the same way spending almost the entire pay check on food, clothes, entertainment, furniture, renovations etc).
But the huge investments from venture capitals are what make pioneering companies like Google and Facebook possible. These start-ups now pay billions of corporate tax and hire millions of employees. Won't happen if the market is not allowed to function properly.
@@priceqian7046 The market will be allowed to function, just as it is in say Sweden or Denmark. The only difference will be that the incredibly rich won't be able to misuse or hide that money for stock buybacks, or tax free in the Caiman Islands.
I mean, it is a marginal tax. But just as a though experiment, if it wasn't, 10million would still give you 3million. Still rich AF. However, I'd get it, 7m just gone sucks, and that's where we get back to reality. I wonder whether most people really don't get it, or just want to stay ignorant, and straw man it, because they got no real arguments against it. Let's be real, most Americans against it just have one thing in mind "I'm going to become rich one day! (they won't), I'm protecting my future rich ass! (which they won't get)" That's alright, but at least be honest about it. PS: The 70% Tax Rate wouldn't even be socialist lol Socialism is a little more complex than just that.
The good news is it isn't even THAT bad. The 70% tax rate isn't on the whole $10 million. The 70% tax rate doesn't kick in until after someone has made more than $10 million in one calendar year.
Your comment reminds me of this quote: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." And just a little fact...only 16,000 Americans make $10m or more so this would benefit literally 99% of the population and even if one's dream of becoming wealthy does come to fruition, you'll still be wealthy if you're making 10 million a fucking year so stop being a greedy shit and help your fellow humans out with education and healthcare.
@@jaguarrose7022 Exactly, that's my understanding as well. If you made $10 million and 1 dollar, the tax would be on the $1 (or more) over the $10 million not on the initial $10 million.
