Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Didn't that radical lefty Dwight D Eisenhower do this? Only at a higher percentage? And weren't those considered among our more prosperous times?
No, the 91% rate was a nominal rate. The effective rates were only slightly higher than what we have today. This is according to Saez and Piketty, progressive darling economists from UC Berkeley, who are often considered gurus on income inequality.
The voters chose her over the other candidate. It's very simple really.
Yes, when presented with two terrible choices, its obvious that a terrible candidate will win. For further proof, you can think back to the 2016 presidential elections, and I'm assuming we will see a similar situation in 2020.
I'm still trying to understand how she was elected.
You have to understand the kind of people who make up her district. I live only about 20 miles east of that district. The people are largely Hispanic, low education, and low income.
The Hispanic angle alone would have gotten her elected. She ran against a white man who was first elected 20 years ago. The ethnicity of the district changed a lot and its not surprising that they voted for one of their own.
No doubt that low education and low income added to her tally. They're even dumber than she is. She could come out with a million gaffes and they wouldn't know the difference. She knocked on doors and passed out fliers promising FREE everything. Why wouldn't such people believe her?
Being the candidate with the "D" after her name will get her automatically re-elected into her old age over there. Doesn't matter that she's a dingbat and has an extreme ideology (even if she herself doesn't understand that ideology).
Look, if the chairman of the Democratic National Committee believes that this idiot is "the future face of the Democratic party", then how can you fault a bunch of poorly educated know-nothings?
The only positive I can say about her is that she is not evil, just ignorant and stupid. There are two other new and radical Dem congresswomen who ARE evil. They are much more dangerous than this little girl.
https://www.atr.org/ocasio-cortez-ta...te-new-yorkers
This means that in NY and CA, when you include state and local taxes, some people will be paying over 80% in taxes. Thats just absurd, regardless of how much money anyone makes. The federal government does not have the right to take 70% of anyone's income, taking ~30% is questionable, especially considering how wasteful they are with it.
God knows I'm no tax expert, but here's my guess.
First, it'll never pass.
Second, if it did pass, it would target the wealthy, and the wealthy are the ones with the expensive tax lawyers who would ensure so many loopholes that the tax wouldn't be anywhere near 70%.
This means that in NY and CA, when you include state and local taxes, some people will be paying over 80% in taxes. Thats just absurd, regardless of how much money anyone makes. The federal government does not have the right to take 70% of anyone's income, taking ~30% is questionable, especially considering how wasteful they are with it.
get the yellow vests ready.........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
