Sorry I love AOC and I am fairly liberal but expecting anyone to give the government 70% of the money they earn is too much, even if we used to do it.
-
-
-
Key point: nobody who makes 300 million dollars a year earns it.
-
EXACTLY and the money circulates through the economy instead of sitting offshore
-
If someone makes $300M it doesn’t just sit there. It’s used to invest in other companies/ventures, bonds (financing government and companies alike), or... if it does sit, it creates interest as it’s lent out to families and businesses.
-
It is used to build capital. This is capital wealth hoarding. Money gets moved around amongst the ultra-rich, but it is *not* used to make the lives of workers - the vast majority of Americans - any better. The wealth gap is expanding at a record pace.
-
Pay barely keeps up with inflation. People live in perpetual debt. Taxing the ultra-wealthy capitalists incentivizes them to improve employee conditions, pay them better, and to not cut corners in order to maximize wealth-production for themselves.
-
The problem that is happening is that as the economy grows, the workers are receiving a proportionately smaller piece of the pie, while the ultra-rich's slice grows exponentially. This is not a healthy economy. It's unsustainable. As we saw in the gilded age.
-
The progressive era - which followed the gilded age - placed heavy taxes on the ultra-rich, and resulted in probably the most prosperous time in American history that benefited the largest number of people. Since then these policies have eroded, and we are worse off for it.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is she talking about a marginal rate? If so, at what level of income would it be raised to 70%? I could definitely see rates that high for extreme levels of wealth, but not for your average high earning professional making 300k a year
-
AOC proposed a top marginal rate of 70% on income over $10 M. No one outside the top 0.1% would pay a cent more.
-
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn’t see the details in the article earlier. I think that plan makes a lot of sense.
-
I don't think politico likes her. It's a poorly written article leaving out key clarifying details to get a rise out of their readership.
-
Most of the corporate media seems to despise AOC almost as much as right wingers do. The 1% has been on the gravy train for too long now and they’re scared shitless of a social democracy.
-
NY Magazine has an interesting perspective on the negative attention AOC is receiving from liberal news outlets about her moderate proposal. They explain the proposal with historical data and posit that wealthy corporate news owners control some of the messaging.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Topped out at about 91% under Eisenhower.
-
It’s even better than that! 94% in 1944 and 45 and 92% in 1952 and 53. Let’s go for 99% (or dare we say - 100%) now

-
Rough math... If you took 100% of the top 1% total wealth, not even just income, you would have maybe enough to cover Medicare for all over its initial 10 year estimate. Not to mention any other govt programs you want to run. And you wouldn’t have the rich to tax anymore.
-
Good thing that nobody has proposed something like that as a mechanism to pay for mfa. Nice straw man tho. 100% marginal tax rate would be for setting a maximum wage, which could be done for a variety of reasons, but not as a, let alone the sole , funding mechanism for mfa
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.