Why are middle class conservatives such cucks for people who make over 10 million dollars a year? Is this akin to the whole "one day you can be a slave plantation owner" rhetoric pre Civil War? Why do people hate a politician with such vitriolic anger because she wants politicians to be beholden to their constituents instead of corporate donors?
I could be wrong but I haven't seen where AOC discloses what happens under 10mm per year. I really believe that she would need to start raising taxes much, much lower and then maybe only hit 70 or 90 percent at the 10mm level. But if people start being taxed at 50 percent (for example) at 100 or 200k, I would expect a lot of "supporters" to quickly change their tune.
AOC, like any other politician, will use populism when it suits her. Taxing under the 5m mark starts to impact a lot of people.
I doubt she has many supporters making say over $250K. If she wanted the marginal tax rate of 50% above that level it would impact a very small percentage of people. And above $2M I think a 60% rate isn't nuts. 70% is too high though.
Yea, believing people who earn $10m + a year should be able to keep a fair percentage of the fruits of their labor, skill and endeavor makes you a "cuck" - classy. Sounds like what you, and others are proposing is after 10m you want the government to take 7/10 dollars a person earns. That's not cool with lots of people. I think most people recognize a need for a reasonable level of taxation but anything approaching 70% or 7/10 dollars is a non-starter for me.
There is a politically legit counterpoint that 2M in NYC or SF doesn't stretch as far as say Hot Springs, Arkansas. So f'it. If you want to claim that you're starving with a 5M net worth (while tax frauding and evadin away from Uncle Sam), then I got a "libertarian" who'd love to shake your hand and sell their vote and dignity to you.
She just wants to roll the tax rate back to before Reagan who butt****ed this country into debt with his dumbass Trickle down - which is opiate for the ignorant. DD
I think this is because there are people that don't expect others to pay for them. The believe the promise of America is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not that other's should be taxed to cover their lives. I don't have to be making 10 million a year to recognize that demonizing billionaires or people that are making 10 million+ a year will not make my life better. I think much of this is driven by envy. These politicians or media that went to big schools and feel they're so intelligent and smarter yet they just don't have a the wealth, the private planes, the lifestyle or the power they think they deserve. That envy makes them want to seize and belittle the power of their wealth through government coercion. So to conclude one doesn't have to have a billion dollars to see that what is going on is wrong. We are demonizing those that in many cases built amazing businesses that have changed our lives or for whatever reason accumulated more money than others. Just like I don't need to be a jew to think Hitler was wrong and i don't need to be black to think racism is wrong. I'm really surprised its not more obvious.
Do you believe that individuals in the top income bracket should have a larger political voice than a middle class voting citizen? Do you understand that the frustration where a full time employee with a family is living pay check to pay check, w
Your first question is a very fair question. The obvious answer is "no" -- one person, one vote. But reality is that money matters and influences elections. Do I think that is fair? From my perspective, probably. Money helps get the message out for both parties. In politics, the players take advantage of whatever they can -- tell one group that you can make a smaller group pay for solving all of the problems, that's a natural advantage. Play into class warfare, that is an advantage. Conversely, purse strings: advantage. I support political candidates -- and almost all of my contributions went to Democratic candidates this cycle. And I'm ok with a reasonable tax raise -- I already received one under Trump much to my surprise. But, I want it spent well and have little faith that our government will do so. And, if the platform turns into some form of "let's tax the heck out of those working hard and fortunate enough to make a good income (not passive wealth), I will likely look hard at voting my pocketbook over social issues. Your second question was cut-off. Yes, I get living check to check. And, I realize that can happen no matter how hard one works and no matter how deserving one may be. It seems difficult to identify those versus others who have decided that they would rather live a different life style and work less. That is a fair choice too, but those who decide to work harder -- whether starting with school or later in the work place -- shouldn't have to support others who have affirmatively decided to do less because they value their time over work. Again, fair choice and probably a fine decision for some, but unless someone is disabled or can't work (or other extenuating circumstance), I don't feel much need for those who succeed to subsidize those who don't if the latter group made a choice or failed to make a choice somewhere along the way.
Obama was not fiscally conservative but you cannot say he was not fiscally responsible. The Iraq war was essentially put on a credit card. Obama took that debt and added it to the national debt in order for the country to be responsible with accountability to pay that debt off in the future. Doing the right responsible thing gave Republicans a talking point about the national debt blowing up under Obama and Democrats did a bad job of defending him essentially doing the right thing.
The overwhelming vast majority of wealth in this country is not owned by skilled laborers(engineers, scientists, medical doctors etc) or small business owners who might own a small local plumbing company. As of today, the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans own roughly about 40% of all wealth. The bottom 50% own 72% of debt. The vast majority of the top .1% are not 'hard working Americans who pulled themselves from their boot straps'. Our economic development in the past 100 years has created a situation where everything is commoditized, everything you buy is overly engineered. The barrier to entry into markets to have a chance at becoming one of those .1% of wealth owners is shrinking decade by decade. New ideas are becoming more rare at least to a point where a new idea requires massive amounts of research and development from teams of engineers and scientists that us mere average small business owners or skilled professionals don't have anywhere near the capital to invest in. That top .1% mostly consists of trust fund babies born into significant wealth and capital where they had the luxury to throw a portion of their wealth into publicly traded companies to increase their wealth even more. They never learned a discernible skillets. They aren't designing or creating advancements that benefit humans. They were born wealthy, and they throw money at publicly traded companies and they increase their wealth even more while whispering in the ears of our legislators to rig the system disproportionately in their favor. What is even more frighting is that the top .1% are hording a larger percentage of wealth as time moves forward while at the same time those same people are not having any motivation to intellectually challenge themselves. Fewer and fewer people of the top .1% of wealth earners are there because of their intellect and skillsets. So while they are hording more wealth, they are also becoming dumber. There is a brain drain occurring in the ultra wealthy class. Quarterly earning reports is the extent of what they care about. These people also have a stranglehold on our politicians because these same people are throwing millions of dollars into political campaigns. Do you think they do it out of charity? No, they expect a return on investment. And a return on investment on politicians means rigging the economic system in their favor on top of spewing rhetoric that higher taxes for the ultra wealthy means higher taxes for small business owners. If you are a self made small business owner, you aren't the same class as these trust fund babies. These trust fund babies pay politicians to tell you that people like AOC are trying to steal your money to pay for poor people who don't work. Keep on shooting yourself in the foot so trust fund babies can afford to add an additional 20 million dollar yacht to their fleet. You don't even think about it in terms of being empathetic towards the poor. Think in terms of pragmatism. What do you think will happen to the core fabric of society when this trend of .1% hording a larger percentage of wealth in this country continues? What happens when it increases to 60%, or 75%? History will repeat it self. If this trend continues, you are going to see a bolshevik type violent revolution, not because I desire it, but because that is how things work. The current trend of the top wealth class hording a larger percentage of the wealth generated in this country as time moves forward is not pragmatically sustainable. It shows how brainwashed you are from rhetoric when you are okay with a 'democratic system' where these ultra wealthy individuals throw money at politicians where they hear their voices over the voices of the people who vote for them. The hording is accelerated when the government rigs the system in their favor.
Do you actually know the breakdown in the top 1 percent between those who inherited the wealth and those who made it in their own lifetimes?
