Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wants to Raise Taxes on the Wealthy

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

   
   Ocasio-Cortez indicated that she thinks that the wealthy should be taxed 70% & that way America will have a more humane living system. She believes that if the rich are taxed 70%, there would be no homelessness, there would be money for services such as healthcare, education, & housing which she believes should be low cost, even free. She believes that these things SHOULD BE A RIGHT!  Ocasio-Cortez doesn't believe that there should be rich while there are poor people in America.  Your thoughts?

   replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   I wouldn't worry too much. She also thinks the world will end in 12 years.

   replyreport
3. 79

   Credence2posted 4 years ago

   This is ONE time that a left leaning advocate has gone to far. I think that it was impolitic of her to use the expletive to describe Trump, even though that is how I see the man. This talk of a vast redistribution of wealth on unprecedented scale is too much for me.
   
   She is out too far, beyond the point of responsible progressive advocacy and ideals

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly right. But, you see, conservatives are trying to elevate her and make her the face of the Democratic party when she is just one new member who has done nothing except talk. And the loyal Republican.minions are being pulled right along to play the game  like good little soldiers. Her ideas are not much different than Bernie's yet look how much energy is devoted to her.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Hxprofposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         And her ideas aren't much different than those of New York's Mayor de Blasio.  But Cortez seems an easy target - young, female and perhaps more naive than de Blasio.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            You nailed it. The bullies go for what they perceive to be an easy target. Problem is, she is more savvy about this digital age and, so far, is owning them bigly.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         RTalloniposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         One school of thought is that the more light is shed on her inane thinking the better it is for the conservative movement. Democrats would do well to shut her down by calling her out for being so ignorant since there will always be another person like that coming along behind her. She does not realize, though, that at this point they just want to use her as a distraction for both sides.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Tallioni, the Democrats are going to embrace her.  Let me correct this, the more EXTREME Democrats are going to embrace, even applaud her politics.  She is the Democratic flavor of the month!

            replyreport
         2. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            So, you're saying the old guard should suppress the new guard? For shame.
            
            I recall several righties right here on Hubpages denigrating the Democratic establishment for attempting to do  that to Bernie.
            
            My how things change for expediency.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Some even said they would've voted for him instead of Trump. Riiiight.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep, I had forgotten about that. Good memory!

                  replyreport
            2. 0

               RTalloniposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Oh no...I don't want her suppressed. If she is in a leadership position what she thinks should be heard. I was just saying that Democrats should shut her down for the good of their party.

               replyreport
         3. 0

            Hxprofposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            "Democrats would do well to shut her down by calling her out for being so ignorant".
            
            Agreed.  Just as Republicans, especially conservatives, are expected to call out folks among their own who have extremist views.  Cortez is young enough that she might still be influenced to tone it down by her peers.  The Bern is simply too old IMO.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               RTalloniposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Am a huge advocate of learning from critics and being self-critical for the purpose of learning from mistakes!

               replyreport
      3. 79

         Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         My problem with Conservatives is that they fail to recognize that there is big difference between asking Warren Buffet to pay a tax rate at least as high as his secretary verses advocating for someone whose ideas of massive redistribution of wealth smacks of Socialism.
         
         Again, Conservatives think that we are all the same in embracing extremism.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Well, MASSIVE redistribution of wealth is socialism.  Why should wealth be redistributed?  That is socialistic, even communistic thought!  If a person earns his/her wealth, it is HIS/HERS.   Why should wealth be redistributed? That is a preposterous idea, Credence.  I am surprised at you.  If people want more, WORK & EARN IT!

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

               We have a progressive income tax system, I presume that you already know that. How is that a Billionaire like Buffet can pay a lower rate on his income, (capital gains) than his secretary? He admitted to that and that is the question?
               
               Conservatives can be so obtuse. When we place safeguards in the system to make certain people pay their fair share into Government coffers, no offshore banks, no endless loopholes or domination of the government with their cronies  to the point where they lighten their own tax burden, that is Socialism? In a pigs eye....
               
               I am a progressive, so what is there to be surprised over? I just  told you that I oppose the Congresswoman because I do not believe in MASSIVE redistribution of wealth in the society. But I insist that Warren Buffet and Donald Trump will pay their taxes and be held accountable, because I have to be.  That is not Socialism, is it? At least Buffet is an honest broker, Trump, no so much.
               
               You and I have discussed this stuff before, and I told you that I don't abide aggressively lazy people. But that does not mean that there is no proper place for welfare and public assistance in many circumstances. I believed that the idea is to encourage work and not be so flinty and draconian to not recognize that it can be advantageous to us as a society to offer a hand up to those that want it.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Your position is quite reasonable and I believe most Democrats/liberals believe similarly.

                  replyreport
               2. 83

                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Ah hem....….AH HEM...…..welfare should only be for those who are either so incapacitated intellectually, mentally, physically, & emotionally that they can't work.   Able-bodied people OUGHT to work period.    That is the problem-there are those on welfare who CAN work but REFUSE to do SO.  I believe that there should be MANDATORY workfare programs & that welfare should be reduced by at least 85%.  I am sticking to this & WON'T BACK down. 
                  
                  Oh, you stated that people should be offered a hand up if they want it.  Oh no, if they WANT A hand up, they should WORK to IMPROVE themselves.  The government is not their mommy & daddy.  Want a hand up, get to work, buddy!  Work or STARVE.

                  replyreport
               3. 95

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  "When we place safeguards in the system to make certain people pay their fair share into Government coffers, no offshore banks, no endless loopholes or domination of the government with their cronies  to the point where they lighten their own tax burden, that is Socialism? In a pigs eye...."
                  
                  Yes, that is one result of socialism.  When greed lets us take more and more and more of what other people own because we want more than we can afford (socialism) then the inevitable result is that those that actually own that wealth will take steps to protect themselves from that greed. 
                  
                  When a billiionaire is asked to ante up 10 or 20 times what the average American pays, it's no big thing.  When the demand is for 1,000 times, or 10,000 times what others pay the inequity begins to stick out and all the complaining that "Well, you have more, and I want it for me" just adds to the fire.  Yes, they will protect themselves against the ravages of run-a-way socialism.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Wilderness, we may not agree on much but I agree with you here.   A multillion percent!

                     replyreport
                  2. 79

                     Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Wilderness,You had said that because all the little people are "so greedy" that Thurston Howell naturally is going to conceal income to avoid being extorted by the IRS. I say that if they can do that why avoid paying even a fair share? I can't hide my income that way and I don't give any "fat cat" a break. It is more expected for fat cats to illegal avoid paying taxes because they can conceal and get away with, so I will trust the poor and destitute before I trust them.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        OH DEAR…………..HERE WE GO YET AGAIN...……..AND AGAIN!  Credence2,what do you want?  What do you want? 
                        

                        replyreport
               4. 0

                  Hxprofposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  "But I insist that Warren Buffet and Donald Trump will pay their taxes and be held accountable, because I have to be.  That is not Socialism, is it?"
                  
                  Yes, they should pay their fair share - we agree on that.  But should that fair share be a larger percentage than is paid by someone earning $50,000.00?  If so, why?  A flat percentage will work just fine for needed tax dollars IF we get rid of most deductions.
                  
                  Isn't that reasonable?

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     "A flat percentage will work just fine for needed tax dollars IF we get rid of most deductions."
                     
                     I think that's been pretty well debunked...unless we eliminate ALL deductions (including the personal exemptions) and raise the rate to a level that nearly half the country cannot pay and maintain any kind of lifestyle.  Of course, that's also saying that we do NOT decrease our spending, but that seems impossible with our form of government.

                     replyreport
                  2. 79

                     Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Greetings Prof.
                     
                     If I have to pay 7 percent of my income then the fat cats have to AT LEASt  pay that and all of their slights of hand to avoid taxes are made null and void as a condition of not charging them more than I have to pay.
                     
                     I am not keen on the aristocrats and just as soon bring out the guillotine for them all. So, if they pay what they supposed to we can avoid all the rousing of the rabble and "barbarians at the gate" stuff.
                     
                     Even though The concept of progressive income tax is written in stone and I believe that the rich should generally pay more. You have to ask the inventor of the Progressive Income Tax why it was introduced and the reason for the higher tax rate for the wealthy.

                     replyreport
4. 60

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   I think Cortez is indicative of what is wrong with politics, on some levels. She is fairly inept, clueless and most of her bizarre rants are well documented enough to render her the political equivalent of rancid pudding but she's pretty, personable and has the victim thing down pat. Plus the behavior of the incumbent gave her a leg up.
   
   People like to feel connected and cared about, by those who represent them. They have usually displayed a remarkable ability to let substance be of lesser importance than personality when stepping into the voting booth.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      RTalloniposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
   2. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Of course, Cortez has the victim act played.   She is the proverbial victim with the tough exterior.   She is full of ………………...

      replyreport