AOC - ‘$10 Million’ Is ‘Enough’ - Channeling Obama - “I Do Think At A Certain Point You’ve Made Enough Money”

[GURPS]

WATCH: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Talks Tax Rates, Suggests ‘$10 Million’ Is ‘Enough’

On Thursday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) appeared on the series premier of SHOWTIME’s “Desus & Mero.” During her segment, Ocasio-Cortez talked about the Green New Deal, and explained her support for a marginal tax rate of 70% on individuals making more than $10 million a year: If you...

www.dailywire.com

Obama: "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money"

Who are you to judge?

hotair.com

 

[vraiblonde]

You'd think these prog politicians would get behind a consumption/Fair tax, but note that they don't. That's because their rich donors would no longer be able to shelter and hide their money.

 

[Hijinx]

When the government starts telling people how much money they can make the Capitalist system is over.

 

[BOP]

Obama thought $250,000.00 was the line of demarcation between the rich and the not-rich.

 

[vraiblonde]

Obama thought $250,000.00 was the line of demarcation between the rich and the not-rich.

I wonder if he and Mooch think they've made enough money yet.

 

[BOP]

I wonder if he and Mooch think they've made enough money yet.

Doubtful.

 

[littlelady]

Doubtful.

Well, we do know that the Obamas have enough money for flip flops. They love them!

 

[Monello]

So when Dan Snyder finally sells the Redskins, he'll get $10 Million and 10% of the rest of the money, which will be at least $3 Billion. $310,000,000 net from the sale of 3,100,000,000. Sounds about right.

 

[Rommey]

Fine...why not start with the members of Congress? Until she puts forward a resolution demanding the Members of Congress be forced to divest their holdings and only be allowed to keep everything up to $1Million (after all, a member of Congress only makes $174K, so they obviously don't need any more than that), then we can start to look at if $10M is more than enough money. Better yet, just have a special Congress tax rate of 90% on every dollar...

But why $10M? Why not $5M? Or $6,348,982.76? Why does she get to decide how much is too much? I'm guessing a lot of sports players wouldn't be too happy after giving their agent ⅓ to now have to give Uncle Sam 90% of a good portion of their salary.

 

[This_person]

So, everyone seems to agree that changing the tax rate at arbitrary levels of income is wrong; our current tax structure is exactly that.

When do we start pushing for a flat tax rate with no exemptions?

 

[TCROW]

So, everyone seems to agree that changing the tax rate at arbitrary levels of income is wrong; our current tax structure is exactly that.

When do we start pushing for a flat tax rate with no exemptions?

I’d be more interested in a fair tax-like plan that taxes consumption and not income.

 

[glhs837]

Funny, the Obamas are worth somewhere between 40 and 135 million yet I have not heard of them giving over anything after 10 mil.

 

[This_person]

I’d be more interested in a fair tax-like plan that taxes consumption and not income.

I'd be ok with that. Anything that makes things actually more level and treats all citizens the same.

I would leave off food and clothing from a consumption tax, though. Yes, all food and all clothing.

 

[TCROW]

I'd be ok with that. Anything that makes things actually more level and treats all citizens the same.

I would leave off food and clothing from a consumption tax, though. Yes, all food and all clothing.

Well, that’s not really a fair tax then. I like the rationale for NOT exempting anything as laid out by the fairtax.org folks.

First FAQ here: http://fairtax.org/faq

Granted, this is but one proposal for a consumption-based way to fund our government, but the one I think I like the most.

What is your rationale for exempting these categories?

 

[This_person]

Well, that’s not really a fair tax then. I like the rationale for NOT exempting anything as laid out by the fairtax.org folks.

First FAQ here: http://fairtax.org/faq

Granted, this is but one proposal for a consumption-based way to fund our government, but the one I think I like the most.

From your link:
Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit.​

While it is certainly reasonable to suggest that people with more money spend more money on things, I don't think that disproportionately impacts them. Even if it did, so what?

What is your rationale for exempting these categories?

Food and clothing are basic necessities. If I am a bond trader on wall street, I may "need" a $2,000 suit, and a farmer may need a $30 pair of overalls. Filling up my stomach is required to survive.

In short, I am saying that these things are not part of the basic commerce of life, they are part of basic life. To survive, no single individual "needs" a car, or a phone, or aspirin, or even a home (each individual does not need an individual home). Food and clothing, though, are not part of commerce, they are simply part of survival. One does not choose to partake in commerce by eating or having clothing.

The reason I say "all" is to forestall the lobbyist angle. If you say, "no one needs champagne and caviar, so we won't exempt those things" you allow in lobbyists. Same with cookies or generic-vs-brand name, or whatever. ALL food makes it stay simple, same with ALL clothes.

 

[vraiblonde]

I’d be more interested in a fair tax-like plan that taxes consumption and not income.

Agree. I might throw in a luxury tax just for fun.

 

[vraiblonde]

I would leave off food and clothing from a consumption tax, though. Yes, all food and all clothing.

I would leave off nothing. Not even medicine. Once you start doing that, exempting everything considered a "necessity", you bastardize the whole thing and might as well not bother.

 

[glhs837]

Yep, a flat tax "except for" isn't really a flat tax, now is it?

 

[This_person]

I would leave off nothing. Not even medicine. Once you start doing that, exempting everything considered a "necessity", you bastardize the whole thing and might as well not bother.

What about raw materials? For example, would you tax the wood to build a table, and then the table itself, too? Would you tax the wheat and yeast and the resultant bread all the same?

 

[This_person]

Yep, a flat tax "except for" isn't really a flat tax, now is it?

That's why I said a flat tax with no exemptions. The fair tax is a compound tax, mostly invisible, as described to Vrai above. A flat tax with no exemptions is really as simple as you can get.