Cortez marginal tax rate hike

[Darth Wedgius]

And some of the scorn AOC's received has been for other factors, such as providing financial security for those unwilling to work.

A more than acceptable byproduct of taking greater steps to assure those who cannot work, or those for whom work alone is insufficient, don’t live in poverty.

(And let’s be real. Most of us have worked with folk who would quit if they didn’t have to to live. Are you REALLY gonna miss having to put up with the attendant half-assing and drama?)

You are welcome to your opinion, but I think that history has not really supported paying everyone for breathing.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

So the rational thesis is that removing “homelessness and starvation” as a consequence of joblessness will incentivize a sufficient number of workers to leave the labor force as to generate catastrophic labor shortages?

I don't think the conservative thesis gets into such specifics, but does involve principles concerning any window for exploitation whatsoever and also the unfair obligation it puts on taxpayers. Then when you have Republicans somewhat receptive to either altruism or at least consequential assessment of poverty's effect on society, you have more fundamental arguments of whether this should be a national burden or be left to the states.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

And some of the scorn AOC's received has been for other factors, such as providing financial security for those unwilling to work.

A more than acceptable byproduct of taking greater steps to assure those who cannot work, or those for whom work alone is insufficient, don’t live in poverty.

(And let’s be real. Most of us have worked with folk who would quit if they didn’t have to to live. Are you REALLY gonna miss having to put up with the attendant half-assing and drama?)

You are welcome to your opinion, but I think that history has not really supported paying everyone for breathing.

The policy has never been to pay people for breathing. Democrats are actually more environmentally conscious and people breathing more would be counteractive to that as they expel carbon dioxide from their lungs when they breathe.

[Draco Dracul]

Well, 70% is a pretty high rate, higher than any other in the world. And some of the scorn AOC's received has been for other factors, such as providing financial security for those unwilling to work.

We've had a 70% rate before. They can afford it.

"They can afford it" doesn't mean that it's right or wise. We can all live in well-insulated tents but most of us would consider that a bit extreme.

I'd weep for these people should this happen, I mean they'd have to go with only a 70 foot yacht like animals rather than the 90 foot yacht a human being needs.

[Darth Wedgius]

Well, 70% is a pretty high rate, higher than any other in the world. And some of the scorn AOC's received has been for other factors, such as providing financial security for those unwilling to work.

We've had a 70% rate before. They can afford it.

"They can afford it" doesn't mean that it's right or wise. We can all live in well-insulated tents but most of us would consider that a bit extreme.

I'd weep for these people should this happen, I mean they'd have to go with only a 70 foot yacht like animals rather than the 90 foot yacht a human being needs.

You have a right to an opinion, of course, but that doesn't change that OAC is not just getting heat for wanting to raise the marginal tax rate on the richest earners, but for the amount and for other reasons.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Well, 70% is a pretty high rate, higher than any other in the world. And some of the scorn AOC's received has been for other factors, such as providing financial security for those unwilling to work.

We've had a 70% rate before. They can afford it.

"They can afford it" doesn't mean that it's right or wise. We can all live in well-insulated tents but most of us would consider that a bit extreme.

You're right. It might lead to such dire consequences as these people only earning 12 million a year and having to take out a loan to buy their seventeenth yacht, USED! =o THE HORRORS!

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Well, 70% is a pretty high rate, higher than any other in the world. And some of the scorn AOC's received has been for other factors, such as providing financial security for those unwilling to work.

We've had a 70% rate before. They can afford it.

"They can afford it" doesn't mean that it's right or wise. We can all live in well-insulated tents but most of us would consider that a bit extreme.

I'd weep for these people should this happen, I mean they'd have to go with only a 70 foot yacht like animals rather than the 90 foot yacht a human being needs.

You have a right to an opinion, of course, but that doesn't change that OAC is not just getting heat for wanting to raise the marginal tax rate on the richest earners, but for the amount and for other reasons.

Raising the marginal tax rate on people who could buy everything ever owned by everyone you will ever meet in your lifetime without it making an appreciable difference on your lifestyle IS the subject of this thread. Don't derail with "but OAC does OTHER bad things!"

[Darth Wedgius]

Well, 70% is a pretty high rate, higher than any other in the world. And some of the scorn AOC's received has been for other factors, such as providing financial security for those unwilling to work.

We've had a 70% rate before. They can afford it.

"They can afford it" doesn't mean that it's right or wise. We can all live in well-insulated tents but most of us would consider that a bit extreme.

You're right. It might lead to such dire consequences as these people only earning 12 million a year and having to take out a loan to buy their seventeenth yacht, USED! =o THE HORRORS!

"They can afford it" doesn't mean that it's right or wise. We can all live in well-insulated tents but most of us would consider that a bit extreme.

[Darth Wedgius]

Well, 70% is a pretty high rate, higher than any other in the world. And some of the scorn AOC's received has been for other factors, such as providing financial security for those unwilling to work.

We've had a 70% rate before. They can afford it.

"They can afford it" doesn't mean that it's right or wise. We can all live in well-insulated tents but most of us would consider that a bit extreme.

I'd weep for these people should this happen, I mean they'd have to go with only a 70 foot yacht like animals rather than the 90 foot yacht a human being needs.

You have a right to an opinion, of course, but that doesn't change that OAC is not just getting heat for wanting to raise the marginal tax rate on the richest earners, but for the amount and for other reasons.

Raising the marginal tax rate on people who could buy everything ever owned by everyone you will ever meet in your lifetime without it making an appreciable difference on your lifestyle IS the subject of this thread. Don't derail with "but OAC does OTHER bad things!"

Your starting post was:

AOC suggests that people who make over 10 million a year should pay a higher tax rate on that
portion of their money, provokes outrage.

I was pointing out that the amount of the increase could be responsible, and that other parts of her plan could be responsible for some of that outrage. How are these not germane to your original post?

[Mickey_Rat15]

And some of the scorn AOC's received has been for other factors, such as providing financial security for those unwilling to work.

A more than acceptable byproduct of taking greater steps to assure those who cannot work, or those for whom work alone is insufficient, don’t live in poverty.

(And let’s be real. Most of us have worked with folk who would quit if they didn’t have to to live. Are you REALLY gonna miss having to put up with the attendant half-assing and drama?)

Because there is not actually enough money in the target bracket to pay for that. Even assuming they are not going to change how they work so they are not working for free. Which means you have expand the bracket down to people who are not rich, Who at that point will realoze tht working for living is a sucker's bet.