Newly elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) wants to fund her proposed “Green New Deal” in part by slapping a tax as high as 70 percent on top earners.
Ocasio-Cortez, sworn in as Congress’ youngest-ever member on Thursday, is one of a number of Democrats who backs the Green New Deal — which aims to combat both climate change and income inequality with a massive and costly economic overhaul. Ocasio-Cortez has called it “a wartime-level, just economic mobilization plan to get to 100% renewable energy.”
A draft text circulated around Congress lays out a framework that includes eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and agriculture and “dramatically” expanding energy sources to meet 100 percent of power demand through renewable sources.
In an interview with Anderson Cooper to air Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Ocasio-Cortez said the huge government expansion could be paid for in part by taxpayers contributing “their fair share.” She said that, like in the 1960s, tax rates for those with incomes up to $75,000 could be as low as 10 or 15 percent, but much higher for those earning millions.
“But once you get to the tippie tops, on your ten millionth, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 percent or 70 percent. That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”
The 29-year-old Socialist compared herself to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and other so-called “radicals” in American history.
“Do you call yourself a radical?” Cooper questioned.
“Yeah,” Ocasio-Cortez said, “you know if that’s what radical means, call me a radical.”
View this post on Instagram
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
16 Responses
Ignoramus. And a dangerous one.
Climate change is the best she can come up with? As if anything she, or anyone does, will change the orbit of the earth or the solar output of energy.
I have a suggestion for YWN. It should do something similar to other news outlets. It should have sections devoted to various kinds of news. There could be local, national, and global politics sections. Perhaps a separate one on the Middle East. Perhaps sports in not appropriate, but humor might be. And anything that involves this “radical” idiot should be placed in that section. I am not afraid of her that much. She is so ridiculous that she will not be taken seriously by that many people. The MSM has even learned to see her as entertainment rather than politics.
For one thing the income levels (base dollar amounts) from the 1960’s comes to 7.5 times has much after inflation in today’s money. But more to the point, the top earners are already paying historically high rates when looked at as follows:
> In 1960, the top 1% of households earned 9% of all income, and paid 13% of all taxes. (In 2008, the top 1% earned 20% of all income, and paid 38% of all taxes.)
So let’s see. 20/9=2.2 while 38/13=2.9 So the “rate” in terms of the percentages earned is already higher today than in the 1960’s of which she speaks.
But the real point is that she ignored all the tax loopholes used by the rich to escape those tax rates. And all that would happen today is all that money (that Trump caused to be repatriated, plus a lot more) will flee the country completely to foreign shores.
Is there something I’m missing? What is this pre cold war Russia?
georgeg:
You’re kidding. You’re applying logic to this imbecile’s statements to prove her wrong. She has not yet earned the right to be presented with logical argument. She is seriously uninformed, blabbing these phrases of utter gibberish. I have yet to hear a single statement that rivals the intellect of my infant and toddler grandchildren. It is a shame that anyone can run for Congress, without demonstrating a rudimentary range of knowledge of history, the political system, or any areas of proficiency that will be part of discussion on the job. I assume you are not a politician. Me neither. But we have probably gleaned a bit from our travails in life, at least enough to know whether we are listening to a politician (whether we agree or not) or just someone desperate to be considered intellectual – while taking ignorance to new heights.
You seem to be bright and informed. I suggest we devote our time elsewhere.
good thing for checks and balances
#TRUMP PREZ
Everything in the news is Whitewashed!
Once upon a time – they would call her & those ideas, what they really are – Communism!
Fortunately this one individual, one of hundreds, doesn’t have any type of leadership role or wield any influence.
You think she knows what renewable energy is?? How about what taxable income??
Radical shmadical. When I was growing up and Ike Eisenhower (a Republican) was president, the top tax bracket was closer to 90%. What’s radical is that in recent years the uber-rich have been given a free pass – use the infrastructure, defense system, and so forth that the rest of us pay for while they get to park their money in tax havens.
Let’s get back to the REAL American way – where the rich pay their fair share for living in such a superior country.
“Radical” is probably the nicest thing anyone has ever called her.
Unfortunately there are too many people who lack your good sense and need to be spoon-fed and need responses even to the most stupid blabber. As example, “Midwest2” right here has posted a comment to defend her based on alleged experience from the days of “Ike Eisenhower”, despite my comments (that preceded his) which explained enough of the flaws in the argument that should have been blocked such irresponsible claims from spreading.
I have noticed that the system in the U.S. has this unforgivable built-in mechanism where anything not objected to is deemed “waived”. It is both de facto and de jure. As prime example is in a court room. If one side of a dispute does something out of line (in terms of the rights of the other side) then the offended party must openly object or else forever lose the right to appeal based on some concept of having implicitly waived his rights. This goes way overboard in some States, where it goes so far that even if the offended party actually objects in court, but is overruled by the judge, then the offended party loses the right to appeal the judge’s decision to overrule unless a second objection, objecting to the overrule, is lodged.
Midwest2:
I happen not to recall your memories of Eisenhower’s days. But I have studied a thing or two about economy, and have been around enough to observe the effects of some changes that politicians triggered.
Perhaps there was a 90% tax bracket. But the economy was in drerd. In fact, every time there is a tax decrease than includes the upper class, the impact on the economy is HUGE. The tax and spend positions of the Democrats have never worked. The rick who pay less in taxes invest in their businesses, and jobs increase, as well as productivity. This flows down (not trickles) to the middle class, who may have lower tax rates, but pay more in dollars in taxes because they earn more. Dropping tax rates on the rich has major ripple effects.
It is truly tragic that a Congressional seat is occupied by a narrow minded, pediatric, imbecilic clown that has no grasp of issues at a broader level. She just wants to take more from the public, spend like a drunken sailor, and push the socialist agenda to destroy our democracy. She is a disgrace to the entire Congress. It is a waste for the media to attend to what she says, as her words have zero intellect behind them. If she sticks around to say zany things and keep us laughing, her presence in government might turn out to be useful. Otherwise, she will go down in history as one of the greatest fools to achieve public office.
TLIT – you don’t remember? That’s pretty obvious. The 1950s were the decade when America reached its highest level of prosperity in the 20th century. Home ownership rocketed. People bought new cars every few years. People who were non-elite went to college. Manufacturing flourished. If you think the economy in 1955 was a wreck, you’ve been getting your history from the comic pages aka Fox.
Why, yes. Yes, we will call you a radical, thank you.
But not because of the 70% tax rate shtick. She’s a radical because what she’s really after is the government expansion. Like all socialists, she wants to use government to control as much of the people’s lives as possible.
I always find it interesting, by the way, that the people who say we can’t control the southern border and we should just get used to open borders because there’s no way to stop it anyway, are the same ones who think that all it’ll take to control the climate is a bit more government.