Yeah by taxing the rich 70%. No I don't think so. If she does get elected and follows through with her demands, the US economy will be in shambles.

Hello all! I have been a lurker on this site for years. Generally love the conversations as they are very insightful. I never thought a political post is what would drag me out of the shadows, but I just cannot be quiet here.

Cortez liking Smash is awesome as long as it isnt pandering.

I view her tax bracket additions as a mistake, but if they happen it would be ok because taxation almost never drives economy, but it can kill it. However, it seems as though neither side here knows how the brackets currently work. Lets say I recieve a check for $2,000. I would be taxed 15% by the federal government. Now, lets say my next is $2,500 it would then be 20%. (Not actual numbers just an example).  So, under the US' current system of taxation when someone reached $10,000,001 the full amount would be taxed 70%, which wouldn't include Social Security, State income, county, city, medicare, etc. Where does it stop? 80%? Under Eisenhower it was 70%, but the wealthy ended up only paying 47ish% by using breaks and loop holes. 

Today: Top 1% pays 39.48% of the income tax in the US. Top 10% pays 70.88%. While they also provide the vast majority of the wages for the middle and lower classes in the US. Seems to me that if you kept the current system and erased all loop holes and breaks the government would raise exponentially more in taxes. But alas that would mean congress pays its fair share (80% of the US' millionaires are in Congress).

Lastly, socialism. It sucks. No, the government's being pointed to in this thread in the EU are not socialist economies. Very large governments? yes, socialist countries? Hell no.

Anyway, hate that my first post was here. I look forward to happier posts.

You're not but plenty of people are, this is a topic that is nonexistant in other countries, and the matter of having to deal with 2 or more jobs is real, too. 

I mean, I don't even support Ocasio-Cortez, the woman speaks nonsense sometimes, but it's equally delusional to think that if you're having a rough time in life it must always be your own fault. 

Well that's twisting the facts nicely, that hypothetical 70% was mentioned only for any income over 10 million in that year, the first 10 million would be taxed normally 

I personally don't see why the super Rich shouldn't contribute far more to a society they are clearly benefiting from 

I take it you voted for the orange Klansman who kidnaps Hispanic children and lets them get molested?

You despise more equality?

Democratic Socialism has been around a very long time in the highly economically efficient Northern European countries and it as made them better in almost all indicators of social equality than the US  

They already contribute far more even though they use breaks and not including the income they provide to others. I just dont see why they should be punished for being wildly successful.

If I were ever clever enough and had the esources to make 10 mil I would stop at $9,999,999.99 just to be a troll to the government. The rest would be fed into my business and not taken as income.

You despise more equality?

Democratic Socialism has been around a very long time in the highly economically efficient Northern European countries and it as made them better in almost all indicators of social equality than the US  

Punished? They have been paying proportionally less tax for decades when compared to the Middle classes, with the latests tax breaks for the Rich making that even less, US society is in desperate need to improve services (Except the Military which is generally well funded)