Ocasio-Cortez floats 70% marginal tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

[NED funded]

I don't even know where to start with this. It not only has an unrealistic goal (12 years carbon free), the entire concept of a new green deal is vague af and it doesn't really do anything to address climate change. But more importantly:

Why not just do a carbon tax if the concern is both revenue and addressing climate change??

This is what I dislike about leftist policies, its all pie in the sky nothing settled and it can be boiled down to hur durr rich people are bad without addressing the actual problem.

I edited the title so that its more accurate.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is floating an income tax rate as high as 60 to 70 percent on the highest-earning Americans to combat carbon emissions.

Speaking with Anderson Cooper in a “60 Minutes” interview scheduled to air Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez said a dramatic increase in taxes could support her “Green New Deal” goal of eliminating the use of fossil fuels within 12 years — a goal she acknowledges is ambitious.

“What is the problem with trying to push our technological capacities to the furthest extent possible?” Ocasio-Cortez asked. “There’s an element where yeah, people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes.”

Ocasio-Cortez pointed out that in a progressive tax rate system, not all income for a high earner is taxed at such a high rate. Rather, rates increase on each additional level of income, with dramatic increases on especially high earnings, such as $10 million.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...nt-tax-1080874

[Edge-]

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...-new-deal.html

I have no issues with returning tax rates for the ultra-wealthy to what they were before Republicans gutted them while promising that the wealth would trickle down (it hasn't, it's just been concentrated).

I have no problem with taking both approaches - tax the wealthy and add a carbon tax with a Republican cap and trade system to urge businesses to figure out how to cut emissions as well.

I don't think anyone thinks that 12 years is reasonable (not even her), but this is absolutely a direction that we should be going in if we want to continue something approximating our way of life for more than just the next generation or two.

[cubby]

I don't even know where to start with this. It not only has an unrealistic goal (12 years carbon free), the entire concept of a new green deal is vague af and it doesn't really do anything to address climate change. But more importantly:

Why not just do a carbon tax if the concern is both revenue and addressing climate change??

This is what I dislike about leftist policies, its all pie in the sky nothing settled and it can be boiled down to hur durr rich people are bad without addressing the actual problem.

I edited the title so that its more accurate.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...nt-tax-1080874

Yeah, what a horrible idea to start with an idea and then negotiate with your peers to solve several large problems at once. Traitor!

I also love that you label this "dislike about leftist policies" - do you also dislike the rightist ones that give huge tax breaks to the rich without any way to make up the revenue loss?

[NM 156]

I'm not morally opposed to higher tax brackets for the very rich, like the eight figure incomes referenced. I will plead ignorance as to whether or not it would be good economic policy though.

[NED funded]

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...-new-deal.html

I have no issues with returning tax rates for the ultra-wealthy to what they were before Republicans gutted them while promising that the wealth would trickle down (it hasn't, it's just been concentrated).

Research a little before you post:

[Edge-]

I'm not morally opposed to higher tax brackets for the very rich, like the eight figure incomes referenced. I will plead ignorance as to whether or not it would be good economic policy though.

The US has had marginal tax rates as high as 90% on top earners. Oddly enough, the years of high taxation were generally viewed as the "golden years" for the US.

[Poopymonster]

The US has had marginal tax rates as high as 90% on top earners. Oddly enough, the years of high taxation were generally viewed as the "golden years" for the US.

There were a lot fewer write offs and loopholes back then.

[cubby]

We should be switching from oil to cng or electric asap. Reason being we wouldn't need the middle east. Don't think a huge tax on the wealthy would help that much.

We don't need the middle east right now, even if we stayed right where we are with energy use. You should look at the revenue from increased taxes on the rich.

Btw, I don't think we should spend the revenue on what AOC suggests. Green plans aren't going help much right now, and they will take resources away from other priority projects - like healthcare and infrastructure.

[Thekri]

We should be switching from oil to cng or electric asap. Reason being we wouldn't need the middle east. Don't think a huge tax on the wealthy would help that much.

You do know electric is not a production method right?

[Ripster42]

You do know electric is not a production method right?

I'm guessing they mean renewable variable output (solar/wind) with battery stabilized output, but I could just be imagining they know what they're talking about.

[Xeones]

That would be around it was at the time of our largest economic growth.

We take taxes lower and lower and lower on the rich and we keep getting told they're going to do the "right thing" with it and they never do. We lose all our good jobs and our wages stagnate while the elite see their incomes increase exponentially.

[Spectral]

“What is the problem with trying to push our technological capacities to the furthest extent possible?” Ocasio-Cortez asked. “There’s an element where yeah, people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes.”

What's striking here is how connected these ideas are for her (and possibly for some people in the thread). What's the tether here? How is pushing our technological capability contingent on levying very high income taxes? This kind of rhetoric is exactly the kind of shit that makes people skeptical of the motives of environmentalists.

I'm not opposed to an energy moon shot and I'm not opposed to increased taxation if there's a clear need for revenue and the tax is levied in an economically efficient fashion, but there's no reason to expect that the best approach is to tax "the rich" via income tax rather than a Pigouvian carbon tax, VAT, Georgian tax, or other methods.

There's also no particular effort to figure out where the hell 12 years or 70% came from - they're just feels-based numbers. They're also huge swings in policy, which aren't typically ideal due to how difficult they are to plan around.

[nymphetsss]

A large tax on the wealthy is a fantastic way to make them leave the country hahaha. This is a great plan

Why are companies moving their headquarters and factories over seas? The cost of business here is too much, be it in labour, taxes, etc

[Zython]

I don't even know where to start with this. It not only has an unrealistic goal (12 years carbon free), the entire concept of a new green deal is vague af and it doesn't really do anything to address climate change. But more importantly:

Why not just do a carbon tax if the concern is both revenue and addressing climate change??

This is what I dislike about leftist policies, its all pie in the sky nothing settled and it can be boiled down to hur durr rich people are bad without addressing the actual problem.

I edited the title so that its more accurate.




https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...nt-tax-1080874

A few things.

1. Crippling the power of the wealthy is absolutely necessary to curtail global climate change. They're the ones that are destroying our world.

2. 12 years isn't reasonable, no. But it is what's necessary. If we wanted a reasonable solution, we should have implemented reasonable measures decades ago.

3. Honestly, I don't think this goes far enough. The marginal tax rate should go up to 200%.

The reason the left pushes for these big solutions is because we've let the problems get this bad. We literally do not have the time to implement solutions that make you personally comfortable. The only way for the solutions you want to be implemented to be actually effective is to invent a time machine and implement them 40 years ago. And, to be honest, that's unreasonable.

[Edge-]

A large tax on the wealthy is a fantastic way to make them leave the country hahaha. This is a great plan

Why are companies moving their headquarters and factories over seas? The cost of business here is too much, be it in labour, taxes, etc

So basically we need to bend over backwards for the ultra-wealthy and corporations (who largely steer legislation in their favor anyways) while income inequality gets worse and worse and the majority of us get screwed? That's pretty sweet, I guess.

[Zython]

A large tax on the wealthy is a fantastic way to make them leave the country hahaha. This is a great plan

Why are companies moving their headquarters and factories over seas? The cost of business here is too much, be it in labour, taxes, etc

Yeah, and then we'll have to ruin our own lives. And honestly, that's WAY too much work.

- - - Updated - - -

What's striking here is how connected these ideas are for her (and possibly for some people in the thread). What's the tether here? How is pushing our technological capability contingent on levying very high income taxes? This kind of rhetoric is exactly the kind of shit that makes people skeptical of the motives of environmentalists.

I'm not opposed to an energy moon shot and I'm not opposed to increased taxation if there's a clear need for revenue and the tax is levied in an economically efficient fashion, but there's no reason to expect that the best approach is to tax "the rich" via income tax rather than a Pigouvian carbon tax, VAT, Georgian tax, or other methods.

There's also no particular effort to figure out where the hell 12 years or 70% came from - they're just feels-based numbers. They're also huge swings in policy, which aren't typically ideal due to how difficult they are to plan around.

The reason you're confused is because you're looking at this as an abstract issue, rather than one with real consequences, actors, and deadlines. The figures are from various reports about how the rich are doing the polluting, and how we have until 2030 to fix this. You're confusion comes form the fact that she has informed herself about this, whereas you have not.

[Spectral]

The reason you're confused is because you're looking at this as an abstract issue, rather than one with real consequences, actors, and deadlines. The figures are from various reports about how the rich are doing the polluting, and how we have until 2030 to fix this. You're confusion comes form the fact that she has informed herself about this, whereas you have not.

I think it would literally be challenging to write a retort that has less foundation in fact. This is just a completely substanceless mewl.

[nymphetsss]

So basically we need to bend over backwards for the ultra-wealthy and corporations (who largely steer legislation in their favor anyways) while income inequality gets worse and worse and the majority of us get screwed? That's pretty sweet, I guess.

So after they leave, and take the 40ish% they pay now , you are left with nothing because you got greedy for 70%. makes sense

[Zython]

I think it would literally be challenging to write a retort that has less foundation in fact. This is just a completely substanceless mewl.

I already linked my citations showing what's going on. If you don't have anything proving me wrong, I'm going to have to ask for you to give up something. What are you offering?

[Sky High]

I’ll take any serious talk of raising taxes regadless of how obsene some people might see them.