GOP first debate.

[clearspira]

Never trust someone who earns more, but pays noticibly less percent of their income as tax or social contributions, than you do.

To clarify (as in make clear we're talking about, not to liquify butter), are you advocating against both regressive and progressive tax systems?

I'm advocating against me earning ~50k€ a year and having to give 49% of that away for taxes and social contributions, while my immediate superior earns four times as much and somehow manages to only get 35% of her income removed for the same purposes.

Ah I see. It is a regressive tax system.

I don't even know what that means but you appear to be advocating for a two-tiered tax system that benefits the rich.

[Madner Kami]

Ah I see. It is a regressive tax system.

No, it's not. The German income-tax system is progressive. She just has access to means to "launder" her income, for lack of a better word, than I do and that simply because she's got more disposable income in the first place.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't know if you have this phrase in the US, but here we would call her a ''champagne socialist.'' Which is basically someone who preaches socialism whilst enjoying all of the trappings and benefits of capitalism.

A very good example would be the time that she wore a ''tax the rich'' dress to a $35,000 a head New York party.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... areer.html

This seems rather benign... and actually rather proactive.

What exactly is the issue with what she's doing?

Champagne socialism is hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.

That is something you wish in a leader?

I know what that is, I'm talking about the example you provided.

[clearspira]

I don't know if you have this phrase in the US, but here we would call her a ''champagne socialist.'' Which is basically someone who preaches socialism whilst enjoying all of the trappings and benefits of capitalism.

A very good example would be the time that she wore a ''tax the rich'' dress to a $35,000 a head New York party.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... areer.html

This seems rather benign... and actually rather proactive.

What exactly is the issue with what she's doing?

Champagne socialism is hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.

That is something you wish in a leader?

I know what that is, I'm talking about the example you provided.

You don't think spending half the median income of an American family on a party and then crowing about how nasty rich people are on the dress you wore to said party isn't hypocrisy? Dropping 35 grand in one day for an event lasting one day makes you pretty rich in most peoples' book.

Churchill once said that the greatest argument against democracy is to talk to the average voter. And honestly, people who follow the likes of AOC or Trump convince me of that. They are brazen in their two-facedness and yet millions just lap it up like dogs at a bowl.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't know if you have this phrase in the US, but here we would call her a ''champagne socialist.'' Which is basically someone who preaches socialism whilst enjoying all of the trappings and benefits of capitalism.

A very good example would be the time that she wore a ''tax the rich'' dress to a $35,000 a head New York party.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... areer.html

This seems rather benign... and actually rather proactive.

What exactly is the issue with what she's doing?

Champagne socialism is hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.

That is something you wish in a leader?

I know what that is, I'm talking about the example you provided.

You don't think spending half the median income of an American family on a party and then crowing about how nasty rich people are on the dress you wore to said party isn't hypocrisy? Dropping 35 grand in one day for an event lasting one day makes you pretty rich in most peoples' book.

Churchill once said that the greatest argument against democracy is to talk to the average voter. And honestly, people who follow the likes of AOC or Trump convince me of that. They are brazen in their two-facedness and yet millions just lap it up like dogs at a bowl.

It's not bad faith at all. It's about as ironic as an oxymoron.

[ProfessorDetective]

I don't know if you have this phrase in the US, but here we would call her a ''champagne socialist.'' Which is basically someone who preaches socialism whilst enjoying all of the trappings and benefits of capitalism.

A very good example would be the time that she wore a ''tax the rich'' dress to a $35,000 a head New York party.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... areer.html

This seems rather benign... and actually rather proactive.

What exactly is the issue with what she's doing?

Champagne socialism is hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.

That is something you wish in a leader?

I know what that is, I'm talking about the example you provided.

You don't think spending half the median income of an American family on a party and then crowing about how nasty rich people are on the dress you wore to said party isn't hypocrisy? Dropping 35 grand in one day for an event lasting one day makes you pretty rich in most peoples' book.

I'm still not seeing the problem here. Can only the poor fight for the poor? Must AOC forfeit all of her wealth before she can advocate for the people to have any?

Look, she isn't actively screwing others over for her money (as far as I can tell) and seems to be trying to help the majority as best she can within the system. If she ends up two-faced, then that's egg on mine.

Better to have hope that SOMEBODY in power isn't a complete monster then the "everybody sucks, we're all doomed, just give up" mindset you seem to have. Better for my anxiety and depression, anyway.

[hammerofglass]

(...)

Churchill once said that the greatest argument against democracy is to talk to the average voter. And honestly, people who follow the likes of AOC or Trump convince me of that. They are brazen in their two-facedness and yet millions just lap it up like dogs at a bowl.

Dude, you voted for Boris Johnson. You made a whole thread about it.

[Madner Kami]

As an outsider: What did she actually do to help improve the situation of other people? Think Keanu Reeves (I know, tired meme). Lives in an appartement in New York, uses the subway, could be near-billionaire, but seems to hand out most of his money. How does she compare to him?
The issue I see there is, that AOC compares more to a Bill Gates. May do a lot on paper, but compared to what he keeps in his back-pocket, it's miniscule and it's all mostly a show.

[McAvoy]

OK. Here is something fun for someone to do. Look up how much she is worth. Or figure out her salary and how much her monthly expenses are (guess). Then once you figure that out, figure how that $35k is compared to that. Especially since that $35k is going to charity.

You can question how much she gets under the table from backroom deals, whether or not that $35k actually goes to charity, did she actually pay for that $35k or some rich person did it for her, did she use some other money, later.

Let's not act like she is a $100 million or $100 billion person. She may not even be $1 million.

[TGLS]

OK. Here is something fun for someone to do.

Sorry, I'm taking away the fun. Per Politifact, she has assets in the range of $4000-$60000 and liabilities in the range of $15000-$50000. She also received an engagement ring worth ~$3000. Congresspeople have a pretax salary of $174000, which in New York works out to an after-tax pay of ~$113000 (This is probably complicated by taxable benefits as well as her partner's salary if they file jointly). Rent in the Bronx/Queens (her district covers those two Boroughs, and she doesn't have a house as an asset) is about $3000-$4000/month, or about a third to two fifths of her monthly take home. She also has to pay for somewhere to live in DC ($2000/month?), but let's say that whatever her partner makes evens that out. On her last financial disclosure, she was at $2000-$30000 in assets, so obviously she's managed to save some money over her first term.

Per Snopes, Keanu Reeves owns a house in the Hollywood Hills worth $4 million. Possibly a big chunk of that is appreciation in value, and he may have sold it in seven years, but it puts him way up there by comparison.