Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 14th Congressional District

[jh35]

I did read the chart and I don't agree that it was OK to levy 70, 80, 90% taxes in the past.  And don't think it's OK to do that now just because it was done previous.  And I don't tell you to stop posting regardless of how I feel about your posts, so please refrain from doing so to me.

Do you understand that a 70% tax rate on ten million dollars means that the money OVER 10 million is at the 70% rate and not the first 10 million?

[jh35]

I did read the chart and I don't agree that it was OK to levy 70, 80, 90% taxes in the past.  And don't think it's OK to do that now just because it was done previous.  And I don't tell you to stop posting regardless of how I feel about your posts, so please refrain from doing so to me.

If the super rich had not been stealing from us for the last 40 years we would not need high taxes from them now. Our infrastructure is atrocious.

I used to work at IRS. I know they have been stealing from us, even more than the low rates.

[Chingwa]

Do you understand that a 70% tax rate on ten million dollars means that the money OVER 10 million is at the 70% rate and not the first 10 million?

Yes, I understand.

I used to work at IRS. I know they have been stealing from us, even more than the low rates.

Someone keeping their own money is now stealing?  We have tax laws, enforce the tax laws.  If there are loopholes for super wealthy, legislate out those loop holes.

[odyshape]

Cute, but doesn't address the 70% question.  I could likewise assume based on your post that you believe congress has the authority to levy 100% taxes because of the 16th amendment.

If you understood the difference between can and should, you'd see that this answers the question you asked. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that its unlawful or unconstitutional. FDR proposed a 100% top marginal tax rate. He "settled" for 94%, not because 100% was unconstitutional, but because it was politically unviable. So, yes, congress has the authority to levy 100% taxes, and if they did, they'd all get voted out of office.

[dssjh]

but 94 percent could result in landslide wins, as in FDR's case.

[jeanette]

I have no issue with raising taxes on the highest tax brackets, but not for funding AOC's Green New Deal.

I am not one of her piglets in search of a teat.

I stand with Les Gilets Jaunes.

[Gordan]

I have no issue with raising taxes on the highest tax brackets, but not for funding AOC's Green New Deal.

I am not one of her piglets in search of a teat.

I stand with Les Gilets Jaunes.

Then what would you raise taxes for? The Green New Deal could be a solution to our deteriorating infrastructure. Last year a highway collapsed in the Atlanta area. Transit tunnels in our own area continue to decay from salt water floods during sandy. On top of this there is the highest level of carbon in the atmosphere in the planets history. AND it went up last year.

I'm assuming from the cantankerous nature of your comment that you are an older person. So, maybe you don't care what happens to the planet. I'll still be here for the worst of it. And so will the rest of the small children living in the neighborhood today.

Maybe you hate the AOC media circus. I'm sure she does too. But, let's not dismiss this plan because a few cable news networks need ratings to show off to their advertisers.

[jeanette]

You could have insulted me in the first paragraph. Why waste time?

The Green New Deal doesn't build bridges. It remakes the economy via the energy sector. That's the Green part. As to the New Deal, as proposed, GND establishes the socialist system she campaigned on.

If you're serious about climate change, then you should be championing population control. And posting on Chinese forums.

[dssjh]

https://nypost.com/2019/01/15/americans-support-ocasio-cortezs-70-percent-tax-rate-on-rich-poll/

[itsit]

 I know it is a different topic altogether but...but if she tried some incremental changes I believe it would happen faster and
make more of an impact long term. My suggestion is the one of many in the medical profession. Lower the Medicare
eligibility rates to 55yrs. This way the health care system can take on the segment of population most in jeopardy with
health care and often in the highest need. Lowers costs for everyone else. Employers can start giving more benefits
until we move towards a single payer system if that ever happens. Also allow rich people to get off Medicare or off
Social Security if they make above a certain figure that would cut off at upper middle class top rates. Smaller steps
please!

 I think that in this day and age, rich people move their money around when the taxes get raised and I don't see them
sitting around to pay this 70% tax rate. Not with all the other ways to avoid it internationally. But I could seeing them
walk from SS payments if they were above the cutoff along with avoiding Medicare which they could afford to lose also.

  Also please try to divert the spotlight or share it with the many other new members of Congress who also have compelling
stories of how they got there. Just seems like the nice thing to do, locally maybe include Max Rose for example. Long term
support of colleagues can make a difficult thankless job much easier if you join forces.

[JH.77]

Ocasio-Cortez vs. Trump, and the Winner Is…
 

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Though just one-in-three voters have a favorable opinion of freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if she were old enough to run for president in 2020, she’d give President Trump a run for his money.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, if the 2020 presidential race was between Trump and Ocasio-Cortez, 43% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for Trump, while 40% would vote for Ocasio-Cortez. A sizable 17% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

 
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 10 and 13, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

[JK resident]

I don’t believe that poll for a second. AOC is lucky to win re-election in two years. Also our Senator is running for President too. She also has no chance to win. I do like the wacky ideas AOC comes up with because it is very amusing. It is like a car wreck that never gets old. There will never be enough money from the “wealthy” to pay for all the new social programs that she can dream up. BTW, you can tell she never ran a business or paid much if any taxes. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend.

[JK resident]

Shocking slap in the face on her core issue:

https://nypost.com/2019/02/07/nancy-pelosi-leaves-ocasio-cortez-off-climate-change-panel/?utm_campaign=iosapp&utm_source=pasteboard_app

[JK resident]

AOC rolls out her new Green New Deal.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-ocasio-cortez-unveils-green-new-deal-20190207-story.html

[Chingwa]

"Carbon Tax" GTFO.