"You just ... pay for it" - Ocasio-Cortez cant afford an apartment

[Spike]

We got another one trying to steal the scene




Rep. Ilhan Omar facing new scrutiny over past effort to win leniency for 9 men accused of trying to join ISIS

Embattled congressional freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., once asked a judge to show leniency toward a group of Minnesota men accused of trying to join the Islamic State terror group.

“The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion," she wrote at the time. "We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to effect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation."

The nine Minnesota men were facing decades in prison after being accused in 2015 of making plans, including buying fake passports, in an effort to travel to Syria and fight for ISIS, which was at its peak level of activity and held territory in Syria and Iraq

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/re...-men-accused-of-trying-to-join-isis-resurface

 

[CharlesDavenport]

“The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion," she wrote at the time. "We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to effect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation."

 

[Steeltime]

Taxing the mega-rich at the rates that seemed to work just fine during the 50's, 60's and 70's.

False narrative. How do I know it's false? Because Cenk (pronounced "chunk") claims it to be true. The true facts:

1. When the idiotic 90% rate was in place, the Fed allowed massive deductions that are no longer available.
2. 90% back then is basically 45% today due to the vast reduction in allowable deductions.
3. NO credible economist - NOT ONE, Tibs, not even your hero chunk - believes a 90% incremental tax rate is now a good idea.
4. Despite your repeated protests that only the rich benefit from the reduced rates, the tax data prove you wrong. Look at the charts and tables below.

So look at the last chart, Tibs. The top 0.001% pay more than the bottom 50%, combined, a trend that began under Bush, and was reversed under only one President ... Obama.

The 2018 tax data are not yet available of course so the latest figures I have provided cover 2017, and one projection for 2018. So what does these data show?

• Contrary to the idiotic bleating from leftists, the top 25% have paid and continue to pay something on the order of 85% of income tax. So the top wage earners fund our nation.
• Over the past 40 years, the amount paid by the top 1%, top 10%, and top 20% has continually INCREASED, while the amount paid by the bottom 25% has continually DECREASED.
• That is precisely the OPPOSITE of what the economically-ignorant, like Occasional-Cortex, believe is true.
• Therefore, the socialista daydreamers are simply ignorant.
• The top 1% pays on the order of 40% of income tax, while actually earning about 21% of income.
• In other words, the 1% pays twice its share of the pie - TWICE.
• Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of income earners pay a combined 3% of the annual income tax.
• Therefore, the top 1% of income earners pay 13 times the amount of income tax than do the bottom 50%, despite the fact that the top 1% is outnumbered by the bottom 50% by a ratio of about 50 to 1. Think of it this way - the top 1% pay as taxes essentially 650 times the amount that the bottom 50% pays as a ratio of the population (13 x 50), and about 10 times (2.0 income ratio top 1% tax paid over income earned x 5 calculated at ratio of income earned by bottom 50% vs. income earned, or 1/0.21) their share of income paid.

So Ocasional-Cortex is simply ignorant of the facts. No surprise, of course, since she is a politician ... the only job qualification for that position seems to be ignorance - the more the better.

 

[Confluence]

Steeltime, AZ 1
Tibsung47, EU 0

Sent from my SM-G950U using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Troglodyte]

False narrative. How do I know it's false? Because Cenk (pronounced "chunk") claims it to be true. The true facts:

1. When the idiotic 90% rate was in place, the Fed allowed massive deductions that are no longer available.
2. 90% back then is basically 45% today due to the vast reduction in allowable deductions.
3. NO credible economist - NOT ONE, Tibs, not even your hero chunk - believes a 90% incremental tax rate is now a good idea.
4. Despite your repeated protests that only the rich benefit from the reduced rates, the tax data prove you wrong. Look at the charts and tables below.

So look at the last chart, Tibs. The top 0.001% pay more than the bottom 50%, combined, a trend that began under Bush, and was reversed under only one President ... Obama.

The 2018 tax data are not yet available of course so the latest figures I have provided cover 2017, and one projection for 2018. So what does these data show?

• Contrary to the idiotic bleating from leftists, the top 25% have paid and continue to pay something on the order of 85% of income tax. So the top wage earners fund our nation.
• Over the past 40 years, the amount paid by the top 1%, top 10%, and top 20% has continually INCREASED, while the amount paid by the bottom 25% has continually DECREASED.
• That is precisely the OPPOSITE of what the economically-ignorant, like Occasional-Cortex, believe is true.
• Therefore, the socialista daydreamers are simply ignorant.
• The top 1% pays on the order of 40% of income tax, while actually earning about 21% of income.
• In other words, the 1% pays twice its share of the pie - TWICE.
• Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of income earners pay a combined 3% of the annual income tax.
• Therefore, the top 1% of income earners pay 13 times the amount of income tax than do the bottom 50%, despite the fact that the top 1% is outnumbered by the bottom 50% by a ratio of about 50 to 1. Think of it this way - the top 1% pay as taxes essentially 650 times the amount that the bottom 50% pays as a ratio of the population (13 x 50), and about 10 times (2.0 income ratio top 1% tax paid over income earned x 5 calculated at ratio of income earned by bottom 50% vs. income earned, or 1/0.21) their share of income paid.

So Ocasional-Cortex is simply ignorant of the facts. No surprise, of course, since she is a politician ... the only job qualification for that position seems to be ignorance - the more the better.

Reconcile the first and last graph. Is the bottom 50% paying 2.7% or 10%?

Regardless, those graphs speak more to the tremendous wealth (and growth of wealth) of the top .01, .001, and .0001 than anything. Also, it’s misleading to lump the .01 in with the .001 and .0001. You’re including net worths of 10 million with net worths of hundreds of millions or billions. Two very different realities.

 

[TDX27]

Raising tax rates even above 50% if ludicrous. Most people forget you still have to pay state, local, property, etc. taxes as well so your take home pay would be well below 50%. If I am giving away more than 50% of what I make, no matter how much it is I make, I am moving or coming up with a scheme to not pay that much tax (just like the rich do now).

If people are for "taxing the rich", get rid of the IRS and go to a Flat Tax or the Fair Tax. Then there is no income tax but you pay taxes based on what you buy. The rich spend more and buy more expensive things. If you are rich or a spender, you will pay more tax. If you aren't rich or are a saver, you will pay less in tax.

It's too bad liberals are too stupid to figure this out and have absolutely no common sense.

 

[Smash]

Regardless, those graphs speak more to the tremendous wealth (and growth of wealth) of the top .01, .001, and .0001 than anything.

And this impacts you negatively how?

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Regardless, those graphs speak more to the tremendous wealth (and growth of wealth) of the top .01, .001, and .0001 than anything.

So whose money do you believe it is? Seriously, do believe because someone that works hard and earns their way to the top should be demonized for their effort? Guaranteed you'll see that same money leave this country. They didn't get rich by being stupid.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Raising tax rates even above 50% if ludicrous. Most people forget you still have to pay state, local, property, etc. taxes as well so your take home pay would be well below 50%. If I am giving away more than 50% of what I make, no matter how much it is I make, I am moving or coming up with a scheme to not pay that much tax (just like the rich do now).

If people are for "taxing the rich", get rid of the IRS and go to a Flat Tax or the Fair Tax. Then there is no income tax but you pay taxes based on what you buy. The rich spend more and buy more expensive things. If you are rich or a spender, you will pay more tax. If you aren't rich or are a saver, you will pay less in tax.

It's too bad liberals are too stupid to figure this out and have absolutely no common sense.

This will be labeled as a regressive tax, because everyone will pay at least something.

 

[hamster]

And this impacts you negatively how?

See , this is what liberals/socialists don't understand. People getting wealthier does not harm the common man. People with wealth spend their wealth, start businesses, employ people, build things, etc. This trickles to the common man.

On the other hand, allowing countless illegal immigrants into the country does hurt the common man. It stagnates wages, takes work away from Americans. They take our tax dollars for English second language programs, lunch programs, health care, etc.

A five year old can understand this. Why adults don't is mind boggling.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Libs are really starting to sound like classic Marxists in their tax arguments.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Libs are really starting to sound like classic Marxists in their tax arguments.

They know. At least it's refreshing that they're being honest about it.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

So whose money do you believe it is? Seriously, do believe because someone that works hard and earns their way to the top should be demonized for their effort? Guaranteed you'll see that same money leave this country. They didn't get rich by being stupid.

Anybody who has too much money obviously stole it from the ''working people''. It's really the ''working peoples' '' money and it's high time we elected people who will go after ''The Rich'' and take it from them and give it to us. /Democrat platform

Of course a lot of the mega-rich are Liberals but they don't really want to give up their money. The young bucks in Congress haven't learned this yet.

My ex-wife's mother was a classic Labor Democrat. She'd complain about The Rich and say that so-and-so has too much money and the government should take it from them. Not to give it to her, just take it because they had too much. Then in the next breath she'd ***** about ''lazy bums on welfare''.

 

[IndySteel]

Elizabitch Warren is already trying to scheme new laws and penalties so the wealthy can’t denounce their citizenship and move to other countries to avoid the extreme taxes. If I were a one percenter I’d be transferring my corporation to a new “administrative headquarters” in Turks & Caicos. If Trump doesn’t win in ‘20 I’m out. **** this place and all the libtards and illegals in it. But hopefully there’s enough common sense left in this country to re-elect Trump, then Pence and then Ivanka and kill off all this socialist bullshit.

 

[Smash]

Elizabitch Warren is already trying to scheme new laws and penalties so the wealthy can’t denounce their citizenship and move to other countries to avoid the extreme taxes. If I were a one percenter I’d be transferring my corporation to a new “administrative headquarters” in Turks & Caicos. If Trump doesn’t win in ‘20 I’m out. **** this place and all the libtards and illegals in it. But hopefully there’s enough common sense left in this country to re-elect Trump, then Pence and then Ivanka and kill off all this socialist bullshit.

http://www.juanperdomo.com/cabarete-listing-11357.htm

See you there.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Elizabitch Warren is already trying to scheme new laws and penalties so the wealthy can’t denounce their citizenship and move to other countries to avoid the extreme taxes. If I were a one percenter I’d be transferring my corporation to a new “administrative headquarters” in Turks & Caicos. If Trump doesn’t win in ‘20 I’m out. **** this place and all the libtards and illegals in it. But hopefully there’s enough common sense left in this country to re-elect Trump, then Pence and then Ivanka and kill off all this socialist bullshit.

Yep, everything I have invested at this moment, (not much by today's standards, but it's all I have), is aggressive in nature, only because of the economic environment under Trump.

People with money, even if it's a modest amount, won't be stupid with it. The financial adviser I have doesn't see any major change this year, but in 2020 all bets are off. If someone like Warren wins, even if she can't enforce her ideas, will still be disastrous.

 

[Troglodyte]

So whose money do you believe it is? Seriously, do believe because someone that works hard and earns their way to the top should be demonized for their effort? Guaranteed you'll see that same money leave this country. They didn't get rich by being stupid.

I believe we as a country need to pay our bills and not just continue to borrow more and more money. I pay more taxes than 90% of people, I never considered it as being demonized. Neither did Abe Lincoln.

By your logic, why tax the rich at all? Tax people like you, who don’t work hard. Right?

 

[ZonaBurgh]

http://www.juanperdomo.com/cabarete-listing-11357.htm

See you there.

Ha, ha, so other than it's the Dominican Republic, there has to be a catch. Ridiculous prices by our standards.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

I believe we as a country need to pay our bills and not just continue to borrow more and more money. I pay more taxes than 90% of people, I never considered it as being demonized. Neither did Abe Lincoln.

By your logic, why tax the rich at all? Tax people like you, who don’t work hard. Right?

Well first of all, you have no idea how hard I worked all of my life to get to the point that I have a little to retire on, and will assume I merely misread what you wrote. I'll take your word for it that you are in an upper 10% bracket.

And I agree our government needs to pay it's bills, but even more so, needs to stop spending our money foolishly. The premise to all of this was that the "rich", (fill in your definition) need to pay more, and was pointed out that they are already paying the vast majority of the taxes now.

So, no where did I say the wealthy should not pay taxes. I'm not an economist, but I will assure you that if rates are raised to 70%, tax revenues will fall.

 

[Steelworth]

My ex-wife's mother was a classic Labor Democrat. She'd complain about The Rich and say that so-and-so has too much money and the government should take it from them. Not to give it to her, just take it because they had too much. Then in the next breath she'd ***** about ''lazy bums on welfare''.

Not exactly the same but ex-wife's mother & rich reminded of this great scene from The Aviator. Starting from 1:25 and on specifically:



Now that I hear that Strawglodyte is in the upper 10%, I do believe that's him sitting across from DiCaprio.

 

[Vader]

There are 2 parts to this argument.

1. Liberals want to raise the percentage paid by people making over X amount of money. It depends on who the liberal is as to when to start taxing at X rate. This isn't an economic argument. It's a class warfare argument. It is there to punish the rich even if the government takes in less money because of it. Hell John Kerry said so on the senate floor years ago. Now this doesn't affect all wealthy. It won't effect government wealthy, Hollywood, or even some on wall st. They will have carve outs that keep them from paying what they've imposed on everyone else.

2. The dems will continue to spend money hand over fist. If the Dems win the WH, Senate and the house and got everything they wanted it wouldn't reduce the debt by a dime. It would increase the national debt. Dems have never had an issue spending more than they take in. Hell BHO doubled the national debt in 8 years. Can you imagine what the national debt would be if Cotex and her ilk got into power? Free college, free health care, free food and a guaranteed wage. There is no way to pay for any of that but the dems want it. So any dem wanting to talk about the debt should either state how they are going to pay for all this or STFU.

So this isn't about economics. It's about social justice and punishing the people they don't like and rewarding people they do like by using the tax code. It's immoral and anti-american.

 

[hamster]

I pay more taxes than 90% of people,

Then you shouldn't have a problem helping to pay to keep the lights on around here, like the rest of us common people..

 

[Troglodyte]

So this isn't about economics. It's about social justice and punishing the people they don't like and rewarding people they do like by using the tax code. It's immoral and anti-american.

So Buffet and Cuban and Bloomberg and all the other liberal billionaires want to enact social justice on themselves?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

So Buffet and Cuban and Bloomberg and all the other liberal billionaires want to enact social justice on themselves?

No because they own their companies and can make their income whatever they want it to be. Most of their wealth is in stocks and investments and they don't pay any tax at all on that until they sell it. Also they donate money to Liberal causes which buys them immunity.

 

[Vader]

So Buffet and Cuban and Bloomberg and all the other liberal billionaires want to enact social justice on themselves?

No, if you had read the rest of the post you would have seen:

"Now this doesn't affect all wealthy. It won't effect government wealthy, Hollywood, or even some on wall st. They will have carve outs that keep them from paying what they've imposed on everyone else."

I know there were a lot of words.