Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, January 27, 2019

Both Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and freshman New York Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez want to tax the rich -- but the two progressive Democratic icons are proposing going about it in very different ways.

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

It's worth noting that a clear majority of Republicans support raising taxes on multimillionaires but none of them will support a plan by a socialist.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Warren's plan will also accept payment in the form of animal pelts and/or beads and trinkets.

#1 | Posted by Spork at 2019-01-27 04:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Even better, you can give, and then just take it back.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-27 04:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Even better, you can give, and then just take it back.
#2 | POSTED BY SNOOFY


So Warren is an IndianGiver?

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-27 04:41 PM | Reply

Warren's plan is accepting her own payments? Didn't know she's a multimillionaire. Heap big wampum!

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-27 04:43 PM | Reply

mAndrea requires heap big tampon.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-27 08:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Comrades Sporkgoat and Fat Andy Mattress wonder why everyone calls them racist POS. Exhibit A, this thread.

#6 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-01-27 09:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Racist garbage from you snooty?

This is low.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2019-01-27 10:05 PM | Reply

Yeah. I lay down with the dogs in this thread, just to prove the point.

Looks like it was successful.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-27 10:14 PM | Reply

Is Cortez a descendant of Hernan Cortez?

#9 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-01-27 10:16 PM | Reply

"Yeah. I lay down with the dogs in this thread, just to prove the point.
Looks like it was successful."

I don't follow.

#10 | Posted by Tor at 2019-01-27 10:33 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

The first comment in this thread was a Indian stereotype.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-27 10:49 PM | Reply

- Is Cortez a descendant of Hernan Cortez?

Depends, does he look like this?

scontent.fapa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-28 12:13 AM | Reply

The nation's top income tax rate was 70% in the 1970s. The 2017 tax bill trimmed the top rate to 37%, down from 39.6%.

Ocasio-Cortez proposed setting rates as high as 70% on earnings above $10 million.

Warren is suggesting taxing accumulated wealth, not annual income. Warren's plan would tax the assets of the wealthy, a 2% tax on Americans whose net worth exceeds $50 million, with an additional 1% levy on billionaires. Imagine that, totally devastating to every billionaire. But wealth taxes can be difficult to administer since the rich have assets that are hard to value or find.

#13 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-01-28 12:24 AM | Reply

Warren's plan would tax the assets of the wealthy, a 2% tax on Americans whose net worth exceeds $50 million, with an additional 1% levy on billionaires. Imagine that, totally devastating to every billionaire.

A 3% tax is devastating?

#14 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-01-28 08:52 AM | Reply

I am not much of a fan of a tax on assets. Much prefer higher income tax rates. The problem with taxing assets is you may not have realized gains. If you own a business, it may be worth a lot of money, but not have any income (think early tech stocks). You could be worth a lot on paper, but poor in liquid assets, so a tax bill on assets could cause force you to make bad decisions for your business.

Much better to tax income. If you have income, you can set a portion aside to pay taxes.

Though, I would add that I also think we should tax all income, and tax earned income at the lowest rates. So, unearned income (capital gains, dividends, etc) should be taxed at a HIGHER rate than income that someone actually works for.

The same should be true of inherited income. Set a reasonable exemption (maybe an exemption per person of a multiple of the national median income, say 4x which would make it about $200k) and maybe have a higher exemption for the whole estate (say a maximum total exemption for the estate of 20x national median income) and then tax everything above the exemption at 70% - 90%.

People who actually work for their money should be rewarded with lower tax rates. Income that people don't work for should not be encouraged. It is counter to the "American dream", the meritocracy that this country was built on.

#15 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-01-28 09:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I doubt this will pass a constitutional challenge. Without any details this looks like a direct tax, which is not an income tax. Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Taxing assets of individuals doesn't meet this.

#16 | Posted by taxman at 2019-01-28 09:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#16 | POSTED BY TAXMAN

Agreed. This is just fodder for her base.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-28 10:00 AM | Reply

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Taxing assets of individuals doesn't meet this.

#16 | POSTED BY TAXMAN

So it would force the ---- hole states to pay their fair share instead of leeching off the productive states. I'm liking this idea more and more.

#18 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-01-28 10:29 AM | Reply

"So it would force the ---- hole states to pay their fair share instead of leeching off the productive states. I'm liking this idea more and more."

It would also shift the tax away from high net worth/high income households...and that seems to be what both ladies are looking to do.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-28 10:50 AM | Reply

16

Exactly. It has no chance of going anywhere. We don't tax wealth...we tax transactions. Property taxes are an exception but that's it.

An income tax on incomes above a certain threshold is more realistic and quite frankly......more enforceable.

I know folks who have a lot of wealth. They own privately held companies, land, they use foundations, trusts, etc....it would be impossible to add it up.

#20 | Posted by eberly at 2019-01-28 11:29 AM | Reply

"It would also shift the tax away from high net worth/high income households..."

How do you figure that? What macro equation gives that result?

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-28 11:34 AM | Reply

"Ocasio-Cortez...proposed setting rates as high as 70% on earnings above $10 million.
Warren, on the other hand, wants to impose a 2% tax on Americans whose net worth exceeds $50 million, with an additional 1% levy on billionaires."

I have a better idea: we do both.

#22 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-28 11:44 AM | Reply

The easiest way to have the wealthy fund social programs is to incentize giving. If the money goes directly from the wealthy individual to the government approved nonprofit, more of the money is used for that particular issue. If, instead, it is paid directly to the government, less dollars end up in the hands of those the government intended to help. I do think Chief Justice Roberts opened the door for a tax "penalty" to fall outside the definition of a direct tax in his ACA decision so maybe you have a "penalty" for those high net worth individuals who do not give a requisite amount to government condoned charities. Just like we had a penalty for those large employers who did not offer health insurance to their employees.

#23 | Posted by taxman at 2019-01-28 11:56 AM | Reply

Let's eliminate inheritance. It's the simplest plan. When you die, your kids get zilch. Then snotty rich kids won't exist. Everyone has to work their way to the top and whites will learn what it's like to have their privilege taken away.

#24 | Posted by TylerDurden at 2019-01-28 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The easiest way to have the wealthy fund social programs is to incentize giving.

"Giving" is already incentivized yet our infrastructure crumbles and we have a garbage healthcare system. What, specifically, do you propose and how will it directly address these issues?

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-28 12:12 PM | Reply

Right now charitable giving is incentivized through a tax deduction; however, not every high net worth individual actually gives. Like a I said, make gifting of a certain stated amount (based on some formula) or face a penalty. Again, the recipient must be one that has been approved by the government as that will prevent people giving to bogus charities.

#26 | Posted by taxman at 2019-01-28 12:22 PM | Reply

"Right now charitable giving is incentivized through a tax deduction"

Except that incentive just disappeared for 80% of those who used to itemize. In reality, because of the new tax code, most folks can give thousands of dollars to charity without it affecting their tax bottom line by a penny.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-28 12:26 PM | Reply

In actuality, the new tax code actually dis-incentivized giving.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-28 12:27 PM | Reply

make gifting of a certain stated amount (based on some formula) or face a penalty. Again, the recipient must be one that has been approved by the government as that will prevent people giving to bogus charities.

I actually like this idea, but if for example you wanted to implement a massive US infrastructure campaign, it wouldn't really be all that efficient for people to be funding it through a bunch of different charities.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-28 12:44 PM | Reply

they won't collect any additional money from these Taxes, the Wealthy will just leave and take their money with them

#30 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-01-28 12:45 PM | Reply

Again, the recipient must be one that has been approved by the government as that will prevent people giving to bogus charities.

Approved? Or registered?

Very important distinction, the latter is reasonable the former is fraught with bias.

#31 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-28 12:53 PM | Reply

the Wealthy will just leave and take their money with them

Let them threaten that. They won't.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-28 12:54 PM | Reply

just takes 20-30% of them to leave to offset the new tax increase and the loss of the 20-30% current taxes they pay

#33 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-01-28 01:02 PM | Reply

If you think 30% of the wealthy will leave America (and all of the opportunity that comes with it) just because we raised their taxes you are mentally ill.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-28 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Ok....first, I LLLLLLOOOOOVE that left of center AOC is stealing fake progressive traitor Warren's thunder enough that a 65 year old senator with decades policy experience is having to keep up with a spicy 29 year old.

And that articles are comparing the two??? Nice.. her crap mid east policy shows that cenk u. et al own a piece of her

But IT IS DELICIOUS fun to see fake lefties have to digest real issues when aoc speaks a littke truth.

This thing with warren tho ....It's like Catherine Janeway and seven of nine

#35 | Posted by Cannante at 2019-01-28 05:14 PM | Reply

Are Russians all this afraid of women or just you?

#36 | Posted by Tor at 2019-01-28 06:02 PM | Reply

The easiest way to have the wealthy fund social programs is to incentize giving.

#23 | Posted by taxman

Nah lets fund the military that way instead.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-28 08:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Tor is pathetic

And yes women terrify me

But why is my mother's munchyproxy your concern?

I was talking about the irony of the old lying fake populist traitor windbag getting her message usurped by a younger more attractive and more accurate up and comer....

How does that equate to anything but your ad hominem so you can sell war and death with the cool kids?

#38 | Posted by Cannante at 2019-01-28 08:42 PM | Reply

I was talking about the irony of the old lying fake populist traitor windbag getting her message usurped by a younger more attractive and more accurate up and comer....

How does that equate to anything but your ad hominem so you can sell war and death with the cool kids?

#38 | Posted by Cannante

FAKE populist? What about creating the CFPB is FAKE to you Sheeple?

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-28 09:00 PM | Reply

One term and out for The Mouth that roared?

thehill.com

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has infuriated colleagues by aligning with a progressive outside group that's threatening to primary entrenched Democrats. Now some of those lawmakers are turning the tables on her and are discussing recruiting a primary challenger to run against the social media sensation.

At least one House Democrat has been privately urging members of the New York delegation to recruit a local politician from the Bronx or Queens to challenge Ocasio-Cortez.

#40 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-29 06:49 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort