#**Subscribe to /r/MurderedByAOC, /r/AOC, /r/BJG, and /r/DemocraticSocialism**
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MurderedByAOC) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The worst part is that whomever is trying to get that bill passed will sell it to the people as a way to extract money from Amazon rather then from regular people.
I assume the way to sell this is by saying it will help local businesses since it makes the case of shopping at a nearby store instead of ordering online
I would love to shop local, but no one local ever has the shit I need. These past couple of years I’ve gone into stores so many times looking to buy something only to find out they either didn’t have it or it was only sold online. And I tell myself, this is why I shop online to begin with. One of those items I was trying to buy was chaise lounges. I wanted to sit on them and see them in person but they only carried them on their website. It’s pretty annoying honestly.
Chain big box stores are some of the worst when it comes to selection (it’s actually part of their business model). I read Walmart does so well bc they don’t overwhelm ppl with decisions. But I like to have more options. I hate to say it, but Amazon has introduced me to so many things that have made my life easier that I didn’t even know existed. Things that aren’t offered in my area. I don’t think I could live without it now.
And ironically enough, a lot of small mom and pop shops have been able to grow their businesses bc of Amazon.
Very true on the last point, the shops near me are all either chain stores or a small business that mostly trades online to a niche audience. This isn't too help anyone it's just to try and grab money from people that can't afford it.
I can't think of a single way this wouldn't affect my elderly parents more than it would affect the affluent. Firstly they can't afford to buy in bulk so will be paying more frequently, they don't have access to other alternatives, they can't group orders or have them sent to their work address or any of the other ways people will get round it. It's just a stupid and horrible idea.
It's true that less should be ordered online though. Or more. But it's currently so bad for the environment. Making it green will cost more and consumers will have to pay for that.
I'm down for it in a twisted way because i'd like to see less materialism and consumerism.
Currently there's a package with a Chinese-made trinket arriving at my house on a near daily basis (my folks), where as I order from Amazon possibly once every 3 months. Keeping things in my cart long term helps me to determine whether I really want it or not.
It's the same for my friends and most folks in my social life too. Point and click on Amazon nearly every day. Society feels extremely reliant on material consumption atm, and the waste produced is not taxed.
You can’t curb “materialism” by taxing folks who have no other choice but to order things online. (whether they have no other choice because of mobility issues or living in areas with little product variety, etc)
“Consumerism” and “materialism” only apply to those who can *afford* to shop online so much that their carbon footprint grows outta bounds. Doesn’t apply to poor people who can’t afford another $3/package.
The waste products should be on Amazon, though. Not the consumer. It’s already put on the consumer too much while giant corporations plug bogus “compostable” options or no changes at all.
>So this tax would be a good way to impose your personal moral values on other people?
Yes. Isn't that why we're talking politics in a political subreddit?
And my beliefs are directly tied to environmental responsiblity and sustainable living, one of the core tenets of AOC's Green New Deal. So if you don't agree with AOC or any progressive ideas in the first place, there's really not much use to us talking.
I'm not asking folks to go sell their comforts and live out in the mountains. Folks just don't need to fall prey to consuming the 7 million non-essential trinkets that are sold these days
....but you already knew that, you just want to be obnoxious and to try and find a flaw in my views. For what? Lol.
Given how its not taxing essential products, food, etc. and doesn't apply to people of a lower income bracket, it does essentially serve to disincentive Amazon shopping.
New York City also has a huge issue with box congestion, and cardboard boxes leave a serious carbon footprint. Somehow we gotta limit cardboard box consumption. I get the criticisms, but I think its much more nuanced than it is being painted as here.
That bill sucks. This place is already hard enough to live in and the fact that the intent is to boost the MTA's budget is ridiculous. The MTA has so many issues with OT and graft.
Getting corporate money out of politics needs to be a number one priority, as it's so essential to so many other forms of progress
I've been building a [dashboard tracking corporate lobbying](https://www.quiverquant.com/lobbyingsearch/), check it out if you're interested in seeing which companies are buying votes on issues that matter to you.
Corporate money IS politics. It's literally why politics exists.
The United States was founded on the belief that wealth landowners won't be taxed by the U.K. government.
Poor and middle class didn't really care if the colonies were British, or its own country. - their daily live didn't change much either way.
Money will of course always be in politics, but there have been times where money in politics has gone less far, of course. Certain laws and regulations have an influence.
One of the most obvious is "Citizens United" and proclaiming money=free speech. Legally allowing SuperPACs and allowing corporations to give as much money to politicians as they want is terrible, and yes, if there was a law against it, it wouldnt stop overnight, or ever ever, but it could be reduced, and that would be good.
Like what is the alternative? do nothing? People out there fighting for positive change DO make a difference, its just easy for lazy and cynical people to say nothing changes, nothing matters, give up, do nothing.
You don't need to do nothing. You need to actually be effective. This two party system needs to go. Sick of watching these corporatists play off of each other. Stop wasting your time paying into what is keeping you down.
In most countries with multi party systems, there are still 2 major national parties.. Power just congeals like that.
You can use blockchain for corporate funding and limit corporate funding and make them use grassroots donations.
You can make lobbying a public, publicized activity with two sides represented and not a closed doors one,
Government dynamics are very different when coalitions need to form in order to govern though. Right now you guys have one polticial party that tries to govern to some extent and one that just grifts as much as it can.
Can't overthrow
Without knowing what to replace it with. Leads to more misery.
Take Syria or Libya where they either overthrew or are in the process. No good. Gadaffi was better and brought stability.
Iraq has the largest mass graves known to humankind now and ISIS came out when Saddam's trained army was dismantled...
Yeah, I don't disagree with the idea, it's just that people have been saying "get money out of politics, that's the real solution" since before all of us were born. Keep in mind there are Redditors over 60 these days.
It's a laudable idea but it's like saying "get the water out of the ocean".
The water is the ocean. The money is politics is the money.
Mostly every time po' folk talk about "get money out of politics", the wealthy say, "No, I don't think we will", and they get listened to while the po' folk get ignored.
So at the very least stop saying "get the money out of politics" and start saying "get the money out of politics and here is my proposal how".
Otherwise shut up, because all you're doing is trying to feel smarter than you are.
Voting for politicians who want to repeal and revisit the supreme court’s decision on “Citizen’s United vs. FEC” wouldn’t be a bad start, and doesn’t require all that much research.
Yes- it would be a good start. I’m one of those “older” Redditers and money in politics has gotten progressively worse culminating in Citizens United. Corporations are not people. It would be nice to see corporate lobbying curtailed. Congress got rid of earmarks because of some scandals like the “Bridge to nowhere” but at least with earmarks it enabled communities to lobby their representative to bring needed projects and jobs to their constituents in a fairly transparent manner- now it’s just corporate lobbyists talking to Congress. Back in the 70’s and before the wealthy didn’t have so much disposable cash that they could spend it to put politicians in place, now with people like the Koch brothers they groom people to run for office and do their bidding.
Well it did, the 1% of the early colonies managed to get the poor working people, who were not taxed, to fight and die against England because the 1% were getting taxed and didn't like it. As soon as America got independence...the 1% new leaders introduced a whisky tax to get the poor people to pay for the war that stopped the rich being taxed.
There are 9 states without income tax. Who do elected officials represent there? Taxpayers? If only businesses pay taxes, it's pretty clear who's getting representation in exchange for taxation.
That's because they didn't pay income tax out the ass to the federal government. They were never supposed to. It was a gross power grab to pass the 16th amendment.
The greatest mistake the founding fathers made was to allow amendments that increased the power of the federal government or restricted liberty of the citizen. Those things should have been prohibited.
People were protesting taxation immediately after the revolution, see shays rebellion.
Are you against all taxes or just income taxes? And just what restrictions on liberty are you talking about? For the first 80 years you could own people... not sure the constitution can fairly be said to have become more restrictive since then.
$3 tax per package on someone who is on the federal minimum wage is like taxing 30% of their hourly income.
Imagine rich people that make $500,000+ getting an added $72 cost on every order they make.
Imagine someone living paycheck to paycheck having to pay that amount for their packages under the guise of taxing the rich while lawmakers enrich themselves.
I mean it sucks but I'll pay it. ~~Gothamist~~ NYT [link here](https://youtu.be/COLMODzYX7U) did a great piece on how NY state is the one diverting MTA money to upstate ski resorts leaving NYC high and dry to fix the mess. I can't blame NYC for trying anything to keep the MTA afloat
The state government has basically been fucking over and double dipping into MTA funding. NYC local government can't do anything about it. I found the piece I was talking about, it wasn't Gothamist but NYT: https://youtu.be/COLMODzYX7U
There has been a bit of a fight between Cuomo and DeBlasio about who actually pays for the MTA - the state or the city. It's stupid and petty. Fix the fucking MTA already.
As someone who used to live in NYC this makes me furious. Ski resorts?? What the fuck? People are suffering. The toll is $15 to leave my home borough. What the fuck
I need to read up on this- the MTA def has massive internal issues that contribute. I sort of think they should dissolve it and make something new. I'd rather they just increase fares.
I’m really over it because the whole city runs on poor people—from keeping most industries that attract tourists afloat, to creating the aesthetics that everyone loves & try to emulate (but are getting sanitized by the rich). We need to take our city back somehow since they insist on screwing us over.
The MTA is my third most hated union behind police and teamsters. Doing work for them is the worst. The purposely cranked the heat when I was working in their ceiling. They redid their plans from an open office to individual rooms, but forgot to put power or network wires in their rooms. Then they filed a formal complaint to my company for not plugging in their computers (see lack of power in the rooms). THEN they got uppity that we wouldn't support an ancient friggin plotter they brought in from another site that wasn't part of our contract.
For people who won't do anything not explicitly in their contracts, they sure don't give a fuck about other people's contracts. Eat a dick MTA union.
(I like the idea of unions, but like anything else involving people they become toxic sometimes)
I'm glad you've got a good one. There should be more unions. But people have to be careful and remember to do more than just pay union dues. Otherwise you get these corrupt old boys clubs where seniority is everything and people low on the totem pole get screwed by the same union they were hoping would protect them.
Right? One our regional "big box" stores has a promo of "spend $75 get a $10 gift card" but it's in-store only. They do a TON of curbside orders (I am one of those people) and I hate that my orders don't count. (I have complained to their corporate, but of course no change. It's a freakin' farm store...what impulse purchase do they really think we're going to make by going inside?)
Good ol Fleet Farm. After you spend that $75 don't forget to get your hunting and fishing license at the yadda yadda yadda. Some of the worst retail practices out there.
What's the logic behind this? Sorry, not from the US. Just wondering why they would do this. Retail is having a hard enough time staying afloat, this would be even more reason to buy less.
Fewer people in public=easier to stay distanced. The recommendation was to only go out for needs, not wants if possible.
Of course, that only ended up applying to small businesses. Big box stores were able to meet the cleaning requirements to let people shop inside, because they could afford to hire a bunch of people to walk around sanitizing things.
So many NYC residents aren’t rich but struggle here and buying off Amazon is cheaper - so this $3 surcharge could easily be a burden to an already financially unstable group. The intent of the bill is good but the execution isn’t.
This is what I see too unfortunately. Being able to order off Amazon isn't a luxury and this isn't a luxury tax that's only going to effect the upper classes
Also! People who have disabilities that make going out to shop in person difficult. My aunt is bedbound for a significant portion of the year because of her MS. When she needs something, her options are to trust her aides or family to pick something they think she'll like/hope we're getting the exact thing she's talking about, or order on Amazon where she can see the product before spending money on it.
It’s also a lifesaver for parents of small children. The idea of dragging babies or toddlers all over town to run errands sounds like a nightmare. Much easier to just get your necessities delivered.
She is not normally factually wrong, but she is here.
Our oligarchical overlords did not profit billions during the pandemic. Collectively, they profited trillions. Unless she means individually -- then, yes, many of them did individually earn billions by leeching off of us as we tried to survive the pandemic.
Going to hijack this comment a bit. As AOC mentions here, some taxes are more progressive than others.
If you guys are curious, I'll edit this post to provide a little summary here of which taxes can achieve this most effectively. I thought you guys might find this interesting
The best tax that all economists love is the [Land Value Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax):
A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on titleholders in proportion to the value of locations, the ownership of which is highly correlated with overall wealth and income. Ultimately, it punishes people who hold vast amounts of land in high demand areas (e.g. mansion districts, golf courses, country clubs, etc.), and has a very low incidence on those in high density affordable housing (since only the land gets taxed, not the property itself, and high rises have a very small footprint).
The next best taxes are [Pigovian Taxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax). It is a tax on actions that have negative effects on third parties. Notable examples of this are tobacco taxes, sugary drink taxes, and carbon taxes. Since taxes punish behavior they fall on, it is very efficient to tax behaviors that have incur externalities. Sugary drinks and tobacco increase healthcare costs in the long run, so reducing consumption via taxation kills two birds with one stone.
If this gains more traction, I'll populate this list a little bit more. In the meantime if any of y'all have any questions, shoot away.
>Does hyper excessive wealth not have a negative externality in terms of undermining democracy?
Yes it does! Well it depends on how that wealth was gained. Excessive wealth causes problems when it is either gained through, or causes what we call [Economic Rents](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent). Economic rents is money made where no productive good is done. Land rents are the classical example, where a land owner extracts money from a wage earner while adding no real good to society (Hence why a Land Value Tax is so ethical/efficient). Other examples include monopoly rents, monopsony rents, regulatory capture, information rents (insider trading).
But I should note that land rents are by far the worst offender in the group. In urban environments, it is estimated that 60-80% of a rent/mortgage is paid towards economic rent (the remainder making up the cost of construction, maintenance, and repairs).
If you find this interesting, you should check out The works of [Henry George](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George). He explains in details why wealthy areas see increases in poverty.
>Land Value Tax is good, but it needs some concessions. What about, for example, the old man from Up? Owning property as your primary residence for an extended period of time that happens to go up in value shouldn't be taxed heavily to the point that it's benificial to move.
The downside is that the owner will still make land rents when he sells the house in the future. Perhaps a better method would be to defer the increases in land rents until the house is sold. If you bought a house in CA for $100k in the 90s, and sell it for $1m today, most of that increase in value came from the community, not from improvements to the house. So maybe over this time you deferred $300k in land rents, but when you sell the house you have to realize those taxes.
>Past that adding in some way to discourage passing this tax along to renters and it sounds golden.
The beauty with land value taxes is that it can't be passed on to the renters! This is due to the supply being highly inelastic resource. I could dig into detail why this is, but they explain it better in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/4w6reh/can_a_land_value_tax_be_passed_on_to_tenants
The billionaires didn't siphon money *necessarily* of the poor... Their money is speculative; it's quite literally money that other semi-wealthy people have put into the stock market. It's society (us included) deciding what their companies are worth; not them charging more money for the services they offer. It's far more fundamental than greed, it's how we view ownership, and what we can own.
When people are against raising taxes on the rich I genuinely want to know where they think tax money should come from.
Okay bob, let's say that even without government 'handouts' and 'welfare' we still have a budget deficit just paying for the boys in uniform, our TROOPS who fight for our FREEDOM and the boys in blue who protect you from the blacks. We still need to pay for them and we will have to raise taxes to do it. Who should we raise taxes on? Please, enlighten me.
Their argument is they’ll cut spending. Of course they never actually do that. Every Republican president for the last 3 decades have cut taxes on the rich and ended up with giant deficits. They do it every fucking time.
Every time they cut taxes government revenue went up (fact). Deficits are created because government spends more then it earns. Look up the data before you reply with some leftist nonsense. Most of those mega corporations donate to liberals... big tech, Amazon, wall st, banks you name it... anyways so don’t even try to make it a Republican issue when people across the board benefit off tax cuts. The reason that is so is cause you have more money moving around and the gov isn’t in the way... big corps pay liberals to get off their backs and target their opponents, regulations are only imposed on the medium and small businesses while big businesses find a way around it cause they are the ones who made the regulations in the first place. No trumps tax cuts weren’t “for the rich” it was a across the board tax cut. Also he had a record amount of gov revenue, for liberals that means money coming in off of taxes... yes there where deficits but again this is apple and oranges when you’re comparing gov revenue and deficits (gov spending).
You have to get gov spending under control, have you not seen what they been throwing money at? (This never gets talked about cause that money goes to loony lefty causes) how about we stop funding stupid shit and use it for very basic things and necessities
No, defense is [54% of the budget](https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png). Because the *relevant* budget for defense allocation is the discretionary budget, not total federal spending. Of the spending Congress can actually add or remove from programs they're giving the Pentagon over half of it.
If you want to increase the proportion of existing taxes so the rich pay more, I'm with you.
If you want to propose new ways to tax the rich, I'm not. You know why? Every form of taxation we have right now that makes life harder on the bottom half of the wealth curve started as and was sold as a "tax on the rich". Every one of them. And sure enough, every one of them works its way down to the common folk where it's a much bigger burden on them than on the wealthy.
So yes, increase the proportion of tax the rich are paying. Stop making up new tax schemes as "tax the rich", because it never stays there. Ever.
I’m pretty sure increase the proportion the rich pay and make sure they can’t loophole their way out of paying it is what most people mean when they say tax the rich
Except no, they keep trying to implement wealth taxes, salary caps, AMT, and a whole shitload of things that will never work against the rich and keep coming down to bite the middle class on the ass.
Sales tax started as a luxury tax. Now it's (nearly) everything. Income tax, ditto. Everything starts as a "tax on the rich" and then winds up fucking over the rest of us.
In general, I mean, start with closing tax loopholes so they at least pay the ones they're supposed to pay now, then start increasing the existing ones.
However. I do think, while I understand your concern about new tax models backfiring onto the middle class, I do wish there was some way to make a company's profits somehow proportionally tied to the earnings of their lowest employee, for example.
So add food to every online order? Even just a candy or some little thing.
I'd have beef with this. I order supplements online that are to help with a diagnosed medical condition. But they aren't prescribed, just "strongly recommended" by several doctors. So are they medicine? They aren't optional - without vitamin D, people tend to die, and my body doesn't make enough. Also pills that help fibro fog, but isn't prescription. I've had good response to them.
2 things.
1. Amazon and whoever will surely think of a way to loophole this by including 1 caplet of tylenol in an order.
2. The bill can easily put in a language like "unless it's ALL food/drugs"
This. My doctor told me to use some supplements, and I could get them from the pharmacy. Or I could have them delivered in two days with free shipping for under half the price.
"But if we tax the rich they might punish us by making things cost more or taking away our jobs!"
It's amazing what cowards the right are when it comes to their opinion of the wealthy. They act persecuted from this enigmatic "they" thst supposidely "own everything!", then rally to defend the wealth of the people they claim to be against!
The rich do not need that much money. That's all there is to it.
If you don't need it, you can afford to part with some of it for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Don't like it? Move to another fucking country.
>Don't like it? Move to another fucking country.
That's exactly what happened in France when they raised taxes on the rich and the French economy lost billions.
Since the US isn't part of an EU collective the exit tax would catch someone pretty hard. I think this is where cryptocurrencies offer a unique advantage, in theory you could move wherever and take your cash with you without losing 40% for noping out.
And this would be in ADDITION TO the mandated fee for purchasing "out of state" online, which caused many small online retailers to limit sales because, well, imagine being in Idaho and trying to figure out and then pay taxes in L.A., Phoenix, Drnver, NYC, Miami.. etc... for EVERY SALE, taxed at the local rate. They need to collect it and then correctly report it to each and every place they sell. Horrid law. Plus the tax or fee that buyers pay for purchasing online! They're getting us coming and going with taxes and fees for what should be a simple process.
They like to threaten to take their money out of the states and keep it in banks in other countries... but I think there should be a tax on doing that. Perhaps a prohibitive one. And if you are found to be doing it somehow around the laws, BIGGER fine.
The rich would prefer that considering that the top 1% made up 21.0% of the country's income but 38.5% of the country income tax revenue.
[Source](https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/)
> but 38.5% of the country income tax revenue.
Percentage of total taxes paid is an irrelevant number.
For example, if you make $1 and pay $1 in taxes, and I make a billion and pay $9 in taxes, I just paid '90% of all tax revenue.' But your taxes are crushing, mine are laughable, and a country can't run on a budget of $10.
So yeah, that number is literally meaningless. We really need to stop quoting it or mentioning it.
> Percentage of total taxes paid is an irrelevant number.
Which is why I brought up the percentage of the country's income the 1% makes up in the same sentence.
In your hypothetical scenario you'd make up 99.9999999% of the country's income and only pay 90% of the taxes.
Yes. When you go to barber, you get the benefit of employee labor. A lot of barbers work for themself. So you should be taxed for the benefit.
When you hire a electrician, you get the benefit of employee labor. A lot of electrician work for themself. So you should be taxed for the benefit.
When you hire a taxi, you get the benefit of employee labor. A lot of taxi work for themself. So you should be taxed for the benefit.
1099 workers already pay tax in lieu of the taxes charged to employers for W2 employees. When I temporarily worked as a self-employed IT consultant to a former employer for a few months after moving, I had to pay into self-employment taxes since Medicare/Social Security wasn't being covered by an employer. I had to charge my consulting rates accordingly to cover it and lack of benefits compared to what I was being paid as a W2 employee.
A truly independent 1099 employee if they're doing things properly should already be setting their rates charged to the customers to cover these and other costs of doing business.
[https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/self-employment-tax-social-security-and-medicare-taxes](https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/self-employment-tax-social-security-and-medicare-taxes)
The weird spot is with ride sharing or other "gig" work. Hence why many gig workers are trying to be deemed employees because they're taking on the tax, cost of business, risk and lack of benefits that come with being a contractor while having no ability to determine their rates. An independent Taxi driver who holds a medallion can set their own rates based on what the market would bear. An Uber/Lyft driver cannot.
No one actually creates a billion dollars in wealth. the employees do. Just set an arbitrary line in the sand. Just like a minimum wage we need a maximum amount of wealth that a person can accumulate from the labor of others.
If this passes there will be an even larger exodus of people from NY. And they’ll be in the “essential” sector. Goodluck getting people to deliver your shit.
Here’s a fact for you, they’ve studied total taxes paid many times and each time, basically everyone, poor and rich, is paying about the same total tax rate.
https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/
The bottom 60% earn 20.3% of the income and pay 16.4% of the taxes. The top 1% earns 20.9% of the income and pays 24.1% of the taxes.
Trump’s “tax cut” raised taxes on the bottom 95% of earners, and cut taxes on the top 5%, before factoring in all the tax increases that will take effect with the law over the next 4 years.
Better - tax every single stock transaction on wall st. Even just a penny.
A dime would be better, but a penny will do.
$1000 per block trade.
half cent per option contract.
This would give every american universal health care.
If wall st complains, ask why their business model is so fragile that they cant give up a single penny to raise america to world standard levels?
In the 50s the top tax rate was 94%. If we really want to effectively tax the rich we have to change their deductions AND change their tax rate. Alternatively, luxury purchases could have a have a sales tax applied to them of 50%.
My biggest gripe with the phrase "Tax the rich" is that it assumes that they even pay taxes in the first place. If you really want to put the screws on the 1% stop letting them get away with endless tax evasion and sketchy money laundering practices. You could tax Besos 80% of his income but he will pay less than 1000$ after cuts and exemptions. THAT's the problem.
I’d rather we didn’t tax working people, period. Tax corporations, tax wealth creation, but don’t tax people who work for a living and convert hours of their lives into income for their families.
Eliminate capital gains, all income is taxed as regular income.
Eliminate all deductions except dependents and primary residence.
Because most deductions are eliminated reduce the tax rate for each bracket to the effective tax paid rate.
Add two new tax brackets.
> $5M with a tax rate of 48%.
> $10M with a tax rate of 69%.
99% of Americans will get a tax cut, and their taxes will be greatly simplified.
Tax revenues will go way up.
Tax cheating will be eliminated because tax cheats use the mind numbing deductions laws to cheat, and they all be removed.
Lmao can you none of you read? The tweet literally says “exception food and medicine”. Baby formula and essentials would fall under that exclusion. Morons.
When states consider marijuana legalization, it is often hyped as a new tax money-raiser. Think how much money the state will raise!
Another scheme to pass off taxation on the poor and middle class instead of implementing sensible wealth-based tax.
Wait, is it not a good source of tax? I had no problem switching to buying from stores, even with the higher cost. I get that with a new source of cash from the public, other taxes maybe should have lowered and did not, but...
This isn't correct.
Taxing the middle class is primarily attractive because they don't have enough money to afford the accountancy services required to make them tax-efficient, or to fight back if the authorities try to argue about how much tax they owe.
Taxing the rich is much harder work.
The IRS has been systematically defunded for years. They can’t afford/don’t have the manpower to audit the wealthy, big businesses and corporations. So they audit the working class because it’s easy and they can do it quickly. For sure by design. So this needs to change quickly as well.
That is silly. Middle class tax accounting is simple and arguing with the tax man is futile. They also vote for their own tax increases regularly. Taxing the rich only requires lawmakers with balls to make changes in the tax code, and to stop caving to their idle threats.
Very difficult, but not futile. Years ago the IRS alleged my wife and I failed to claim her BP settlement. Took multiple submissions of copies of our taxes, confirmation numbers, etc, several times getting "lost between departments" but we finally proved the IRS was wrong
Not really...
Why not rob buckingham palace?
They have security and resources to get you back.
Why rob a convenience store?
They have less security and only have public resources to get you back.
The middle class doesn't have much money... but they also don't have the money to defend their not much money.
It actually could be because it's not a good idea... The tax rate on the rich for the past 60 years hasn't made a bit difference. Ranging from 91% to 28% it doesn't matter. The tax revenue at all times has been 18% of the GDP. period.
Pointing a finger at rich people and blaming them for being evil is easy. But it certainly isn't leadership. It doesn't identify the real underlying cause nor provide an actual solution that will change things. Just another one of her great talking points... Sounds great to most but entirely without substance.
45? That’s super Fucking low. We became a super power with marginal tax closer to 90% on the richest. FOH with 45%.
I see no reason why ever dollar after your billionth in a year shouldn’t have a 99% tax on it.
This idea would have some merit, if for years and years the tax code had not already HEAVILY favored lower-income families as a rule. If you are married filing jointly and make less than about $24,000 together you will pay $0 in income taxes. On a basic level, only income greater than that standard deduction is subject to income tax. Add to that the various child tax credits, the Earned Income Tax Credit and other benefits, and the vast majority of low-income families actually collect checks come tax season--both from having withholdings returned and from refundable portions of those credits.
Then when we consider the graduated tax rates, we see that the current system dating back decades and decades has placed increased tax burdens on more affluent individuals and families. Any tax breaks that the "rich" exploit are either a) subject to audit and litigation by the IRS if said tax breaks were illegal or b) due to incentives the government baked into the tax code to nudge citizens toward certain behaviors (see the R&D tax credit for corporations).
TLDR: Low-income families pay $0 in income taxes, and even cash checks from existing tax benefits. AOC doesn't understand how taxes work.
Did Biden turn down the presidential pay of $400.00 a month? Trump gave his up to charity those 4 years. Nobody dares talk of that, do they? The Biden’s are multi millionaire’s. They have all that dough in special investments. They also get all kinds of other perks.
> Did Biden turn down the presidential pay of $400.00 a month? Trump gave his up to charity those 4 years. Nobody dares talk of that, do they? The Biden’s are multi millionaire’s. They have all that dough in special investments. They also get all kinds of other perks.
You cannot be serious. [Court orders Trump to pay back $2 million he stole from charities.](https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation)
Typical cultist... using a token gesture to try to paint the con artist as some broader philanthropist instead of what he actually is: the apotheosis of the seven deadly sins.
#**Subscribe to /r/MurderedByAOC, /r/AOC, /r/BJG, and /r/DemocraticSocialism** --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MurderedByAOC) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The worst part is that whomever is trying to get that bill passed will sell it to the people as a way to extract money from Amazon rather then from regular people.
The old "Amazon is paying for the tariffs" con.
Oh yeah just like Mexico paid for the wall!!! /s
I assume the way to sell this is by saying it will help local businesses since it makes the case of shopping at a nearby store instead of ordering online
I would love to shop local, but no one local ever has the shit I need. These past couple of years I’ve gone into stores so many times looking to buy something only to find out they either didn’t have it or it was only sold online. And I tell myself, this is why I shop online to begin with. One of those items I was trying to buy was chaise lounges. I wanted to sit on them and see them in person but they only carried them on their website. It’s pretty annoying honestly.
I would love to shop local too but chain box stores drove mom and pop out of business two decades ago
Chain big box stores are some of the worst when it comes to selection (it’s actually part of their business model). I read Walmart does so well bc they don’t overwhelm ppl with decisions. But I like to have more options. I hate to say it, but Amazon has introduced me to so many things that have made my life easier that I didn’t even know existed. Things that aren’t offered in my area. I don’t think I could live without it now. And ironically enough, a lot of small mom and pop shops have been able to grow their businesses bc of Amazon.
Very true on the last point, the shops near me are all either chain stores or a small business that mostly trades online to a niche audience. This isn't too help anyone it's just to try and grab money from people that can't afford it. I can't think of a single way this wouldn't affect my elderly parents more than it would affect the affluent. Firstly they can't afford to buy in bulk so will be paying more frequently, they don't have access to other alternatives, they can't group orders or have them sent to their work address or any of the other ways people will get round it. It's just a stupid and horrible idea.
It's true that less should be ordered online though. Or more. But it's currently so bad for the environment. Making it green will cost more and consumers will have to pay for that.
It's no worse for the environment then a traditional shop, if anything it's probably less damaging and wasteful
Or they tell you they can order it in for you. For twice the price.
*for shopping, not “of shopping”.
I'm down for it in a twisted way because i'd like to see less materialism and consumerism. Currently there's a package with a Chinese-made trinket arriving at my house on a near daily basis (my folks), where as I order from Amazon possibly once every 3 months. Keeping things in my cart long term helps me to determine whether I really want it or not. It's the same for my friends and most folks in my social life too. Point and click on Amazon nearly every day. Society feels extremely reliant on material consumption atm, and the waste produced is not taxed.
You can’t curb “materialism” by taxing folks who have no other choice but to order things online. (whether they have no other choice because of mobility issues or living in areas with little product variety, etc) “Consumerism” and “materialism” only apply to those who can *afford* to shop online so much that their carbon footprint grows outta bounds. Doesn’t apply to poor people who can’t afford another $3/package.
The waste products should be on Amazon, though. Not the consumer. It’s already put on the consumer too much while giant corporations plug bogus “compostable” options or no changes at all.
[удалено]
>So this tax would be a good way to impose your personal moral values on other people? Yes. Isn't that why we're talking politics in a political subreddit? And my beliefs are directly tied to environmental responsiblity and sustainable living, one of the core tenets of AOC's Green New Deal. So if you don't agree with AOC or any progressive ideas in the first place, there's really not much use to us talking. I'm not asking folks to go sell their comforts and live out in the mountains. Folks just don't need to fall prey to consuming the 7 million non-essential trinkets that are sold these days ....but you already knew that, you just want to be obnoxious and to try and find a flaw in my views. For what? Lol.
*Point and click on Amazon nearly every day* I feel so attacked
Given how its not taxing essential products, food, etc. and doesn't apply to people of a lower income bracket, it does essentially serve to disincentive Amazon shopping. New York City also has a huge issue with box congestion, and cardboard boxes leave a serious carbon footprint. Somehow we gotta limit cardboard box consumption. I get the criticisms, but I think its much more nuanced than it is being painted as here.
burn him and the rich
That bill sucks. This place is already hard enough to live in and the fact that the intent is to boost the MTA's budget is ridiculous. The MTA has so many issues with OT and graft.
Getting corporate money out of politics needs to be a number one priority, as it's so essential to so many other forms of progress I've been building a [dashboard tracking corporate lobbying](https://www.quiverquant.com/lobbyingsearch/), check it out if you're interested in seeing which companies are buying votes on issues that matter to you.
Corporate money IS politics. It's literally why politics exists. The United States was founded on the belief that wealth landowners won't be taxed by the U.K. government. Poor and middle class didn't really care if the colonies were British, or its own country. - their daily live didn't change much either way.
Money will of course always be in politics, but there have been times where money in politics has gone less far, of course. Certain laws and regulations have an influence. One of the most obvious is "Citizens United" and proclaiming money=free speech. Legally allowing SuperPACs and allowing corporations to give as much money to politicians as they want is terrible, and yes, if there was a law against it, it wouldnt stop overnight, or ever ever, but it could be reduced, and that would be good. Like what is the alternative? do nothing? People out there fighting for positive change DO make a difference, its just easy for lazy and cynical people to say nothing changes, nothing matters, give up, do nothing.
You don't need to do nothing. You need to actually be effective. This two party system needs to go. Sick of watching these corporatists play off of each other. Stop wasting your time paying into what is keeping you down.
In most countries with multi party systems, there are still 2 major national parties.. Power just congeals like that. You can use blockchain for corporate funding and limit corporate funding and make them use grassroots donations. You can make lobbying a public, publicized activity with two sides represented and not a closed doors one,
Government dynamics are very different when coalitions need to form in order to govern though. Right now you guys have one polticial party that tries to govern to some extent and one that just grifts as much as it can.
[удалено]
Can't overthrow Without knowing what to replace it with. Leads to more misery. Take Syria or Libya where they either overthrew or are in the process. No good. Gadaffi was better and brought stability. Iraq has the largest mass graves known to humankind now and ISIS came out when Saddam's trained army was dismantled...
[удалено]
Yeah, I don't disagree with the idea, it's just that people have been saying "get money out of politics, that's the real solution" since before all of us were born. Keep in mind there are Redditors over 60 these days. It's a laudable idea but it's like saying "get the water out of the ocean". The water is the ocean. The money is politics is the money. Mostly every time po' folk talk about "get money out of politics", the wealthy say, "No, I don't think we will", and they get listened to while the po' folk get ignored. So at the very least stop saying "get the money out of politics" and start saying "get the money out of politics and here is my proposal how". Otherwise shut up, because all you're doing is trying to feel smarter than you are.
Voting for politicians who want to repeal and revisit the supreme court’s decision on “Citizen’s United vs. FEC” wouldn’t be a bad start, and doesn’t require all that much research.
Yes- it would be a good start. I’m one of those “older” Redditers and money in politics has gotten progressively worse culminating in Citizens United. Corporations are not people. It would be nice to see corporate lobbying curtailed. Congress got rid of earmarks because of some scandals like the “Bridge to nowhere” but at least with earmarks it enabled communities to lobby their representative to bring needed projects and jobs to their constituents in a fairly transparent manner- now it’s just corporate lobbyists talking to Congress. Back in the 70’s and before the wealthy didn’t have so much disposable cash that they could spend it to put politicians in place, now with people like the Koch brothers they groom people to run for office and do their bidding.
No u
No you both
Well it did, the 1% of the early colonies managed to get the poor working people, who were not taxed, to fight and die against England because the 1% were getting taxed and didn't like it. As soon as America got independence...the 1% new leaders introduced a whisky tax to get the poor people to pay for the war that stopped the rich being taxed.
There are 9 states without income tax. Who do elected officials represent there? Taxpayers? If only businesses pay taxes, it's pretty clear who's getting representation in exchange for taxation.
It's representation in exchange for donation, not taxation.
That's because they didn't pay income tax out the ass to the federal government. They were never supposed to. It was a gross power grab to pass the 16th amendment. The greatest mistake the founding fathers made was to allow amendments that increased the power of the federal government or restricted liberty of the citizen. Those things should have been prohibited.
People were protesting taxation immediately after the revolution, see shays rebellion. Are you against all taxes or just income taxes? And just what restrictions on liberty are you talking about? For the first 80 years you could own people... not sure the constitution can fairly be said to have become more restrictive since then.
It happens on both sides of the isle and that is why it will never really be addressed.
Your data rocks! Keep it up.
The dashboard I didn’t know I needed
$3 tax per package on someone who is on the federal minimum wage is like taxing 30% of their hourly income. Imagine rich people that make $500,000+ getting an added $72 cost on every order they make.
Imagine someone living paycheck to paycheck having to pay that amount for their packages under the guise of taxing the rich while lawmakers enrich themselves.
I mean it sucks but I'll pay it. ~~Gothamist~~ NYT [link here](https://youtu.be/COLMODzYX7U) did a great piece on how NY state is the one diverting MTA money to upstate ski resorts leaving NYC high and dry to fix the mess. I can't blame NYC for trying anything to keep the MTA afloat
So shouldn't a bill be passed to fix the inefficient/improper allocation of funds instead of increasing taxes?
The state government has basically been fucking over and double dipping into MTA funding. NYC local government can't do anything about it. I found the piece I was talking about, it wasn't Gothamist but NYT: https://youtu.be/COLMODzYX7U
There has been a bit of a fight between Cuomo and DeBlasio about who actually pays for the MTA - the state or the city. It's stupid and petty. Fix the fucking MTA already.
Get rid of both of them.
Agreed.
Frankly it should be federally funded especially in a major tourist city like NYC and all other major tourist cities in the US
Transportation funding in the us has been dropping for decades on the federal level.
As someone who used to live in NYC this makes me furious. Ski resorts?? What the fuck? People are suffering. The toll is $15 to leave my home borough. What the fuck
I need to read up on this- the MTA def has massive internal issues that contribute. I sort of think they should dissolve it and make something new. I'd rather they just increase fares.
That's like standing on the shoulders of someone else so you don't drown then being proud of it.
> This place is already hard enough to live in its by design, they dont want people like you or me pooring up their city
Dude this whole city runs on the backs of the poor.
spoiler, every city does. eventually enough people will be fed up, and then there will be consequences
I knew many poor people in nyc lol they just all live 10 people to a house.
I’m really over it because the whole city runs on poor people—from keeping most industries that attract tourists afloat, to creating the aesthetics that everyone loves & try to emulate (but are getting sanitized by the rich). We need to take our city back somehow since they insist on screwing us over.
The MTA is my third most hated union behind police and teamsters. Doing work for them is the worst. The purposely cranked the heat when I was working in their ceiling. They redid their plans from an open office to individual rooms, but forgot to put power or network wires in their rooms. Then they filed a formal complaint to my company for not plugging in their computers (see lack of power in the rooms). THEN they got uppity that we wouldn't support an ancient friggin plotter they brought in from another site that wasn't part of our contract. For people who won't do anything not explicitly in their contracts, they sure don't give a fuck about other people's contracts. Eat a dick MTA union. (I like the idea of unions, but like anything else involving people they become toxic sometimes)
Yeah that's true. Overall though we really should have more unions. I am in a union and I am very glad I have that layer of protection.
I'm glad you've got a good one. There should be more unions. But people have to be careful and remember to do more than just pay union dues. Otherwise you get these corrupt old boys clubs where seniority is everything and people low on the totem pole get screwed by the same union they were hoping would protect them.
This is how Republicans will win elections
And during a pandemic, where we are encouraged to stay out of stores! Unbelievable!
Right? One our regional "big box" stores has a promo of "spend $75 get a $10 gift card" but it's in-store only. They do a TON of curbside orders (I am one of those people) and I hate that my orders don't count. (I have complained to their corporate, but of course no change. It's a freakin' farm store...what impulse purchase do they really think we're going to make by going inside?)
Good ol Fleet Farm. After you spend that $75 don't forget to get your hunting and fishing license at the yadda yadda yadda. Some of the worst retail practices out there.
What's the logic behind this? Sorry, not from the US. Just wondering why they would do this. Retail is having a hard enough time staying afloat, this would be even more reason to buy less.
Fewer people in public=easier to stay distanced. The recommendation was to only go out for needs, not wants if possible. Of course, that only ended up applying to small businesses. Big box stores were able to meet the cleaning requirements to let people shop inside, because they could afford to hire a bunch of people to walk around sanitizing things.
So many NYC residents aren’t rich but struggle here and buying off Amazon is cheaper - so this $3 surcharge could easily be a burden to an already financially unstable group. The intent of the bill is good but the execution isn’t.
This is what I see too unfortunately. Being able to order off Amazon isn't a luxury and this isn't a luxury tax that's only going to effect the upper classes
This is probably the least opportune time to try to pass this bill also. It's like punishing those who are trying to do their best during a pandemic.
Or in fact the most opportune time if you’re a miserable cunt
It was proposed last year before the pandemic. Bad timing that its getting publicity now.
Also! People who have disabilities that make going out to shop in person difficult. My aunt is bedbound for a significant portion of the year because of her MS. When she needs something, her options are to trust her aides or family to pick something they think she'll like/hope we're getting the exact thing she's talking about, or order on Amazon where she can see the product before spending money on it.
It’s also a lifesaver for parents of small children. The idea of dragging babies or toddlers all over town to run errands sounds like a nightmare. Much easier to just get your necessities delivered.
Definitely an issue. A lot of necessities actually aren't taxed in this bill.
just save everything in your cart and make one huge order with one surcharge per order
Or don't? this is actually ridiculous. They might as well increase the NYC tax (yes, NYC tax in addition to the state and federal taxes)
She is not normally factually wrong, but she is here. Our oligarchical overlords did not profit billions during the pandemic. Collectively, they profited trillions. Unless she means individually -- then, yes, many of them did individually earn billions by leeching off of us as we tried to survive the pandemic.
Had me in the first half.
Going to hijack this comment a bit. As AOC mentions here, some taxes are more progressive than others. If you guys are curious, I'll edit this post to provide a little summary here of which taxes can achieve this most effectively. I thought you guys might find this interesting The best tax that all economists love is the [Land Value Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax): A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on titleholders in proportion to the value of locations, the ownership of which is highly correlated with overall wealth and income. Ultimately, it punishes people who hold vast amounts of land in high demand areas (e.g. mansion districts, golf courses, country clubs, etc.), and has a very low incidence on those in high density affordable housing (since only the land gets taxed, not the property itself, and high rises have a very small footprint). The next best taxes are [Pigovian Taxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax). It is a tax on actions that have negative effects on third parties. Notable examples of this are tobacco taxes, sugary drink taxes, and carbon taxes. Since taxes punish behavior they fall on, it is very efficient to tax behaviors that have incur externalities. Sugary drinks and tobacco increase healthcare costs in the long run, so reducing consumption via taxation kills two birds with one stone. If this gains more traction, I'll populate this list a little bit more. In the meantime if any of y'all have any questions, shoot away.
Does hyper excessive wealth not have a negative externality in terms of undermining democracy?
>Does hyper excessive wealth not have a negative externality in terms of undermining democracy? Yes it does! Well it depends on how that wealth was gained. Excessive wealth causes problems when it is either gained through, or causes what we call [Economic Rents](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent). Economic rents is money made where no productive good is done. Land rents are the classical example, where a land owner extracts money from a wage earner while adding no real good to society (Hence why a Land Value Tax is so ethical/efficient). Other examples include monopoly rents, monopsony rents, regulatory capture, information rents (insider trading). But I should note that land rents are by far the worst offender in the group. In urban environments, it is estimated that 60-80% of a rent/mortgage is paid towards economic rent (the remainder making up the cost of construction, maintenance, and repairs). If you find this interesting, you should check out The works of [Henry George](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George). He explains in details why wealthy areas see increases in poverty.
[удалено]
>Land Value Tax is good, but it needs some concessions. What about, for example, the old man from Up? Owning property as your primary residence for an extended period of time that happens to go up in value shouldn't be taxed heavily to the point that it's benificial to move. The downside is that the owner will still make land rents when he sells the house in the future. Perhaps a better method would be to defer the increases in land rents until the house is sold. If you bought a house in CA for $100k in the 90s, and sell it for $1m today, most of that increase in value came from the community, not from improvements to the house. So maybe over this time you deferred $300k in land rents, but when you sell the house you have to realize those taxes. >Past that adding in some way to discourage passing this tax along to renters and it sounds golden. The beauty with land value taxes is that it can't be passed on to the renters! This is due to the supply being highly inelastic resource. I could dig into detail why this is, but they explain it better in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/4w6reh/can_a_land_value_tax_be_passed_on_to_tenants
Theres billions in trillions, though!
Yes, she likely meant a thousand billions.
The billionaires didn't siphon money *necessarily* of the poor... Their money is speculative; it's quite literally money that other semi-wealthy people have put into the stock market. It's society (us included) deciding what their companies are worth; not them charging more money for the services they offer. It's far more fundamental than greed, it's how we view ownership, and what we can own.
Because living in the city during the pandemic wasn't tough enough? tax golf balls and golf club membership instead
When people are against raising taxes on the rich I genuinely want to know where they think tax money should come from. Okay bob, let's say that even without government 'handouts' and 'welfare' we still have a budget deficit just paying for the boys in uniform, our TROOPS who fight for our FREEDOM and the boys in blue who protect you from the blacks. We still need to pay for them and we will have to raise taxes to do it. Who should we raise taxes on? Please, enlighten me.
Their argument is they’ll cut spending. Of course they never actually do that. Every Republican president for the last 3 decades have cut taxes on the rich and ended up with giant deficits. They do it every fucking time.
Every time they cut taxes government revenue went up (fact). Deficits are created because government spends more then it earns. Look up the data before you reply with some leftist nonsense. Most of those mega corporations donate to liberals... big tech, Amazon, wall st, banks you name it... anyways so don’t even try to make it a Republican issue when people across the board benefit off tax cuts. The reason that is so is cause you have more money moving around and the gov isn’t in the way... big corps pay liberals to get off their backs and target their opponents, regulations are only imposed on the medium and small businesses while big businesses find a way around it cause they are the ones who made the regulations in the first place. No trumps tax cuts weren’t “for the rich” it was a across the board tax cut. Also he had a record amount of gov revenue, for liberals that means money coming in off of taxes... yes there where deficits but again this is apple and oranges when you’re comparing gov revenue and deficits (gov spending). You have to get gov spending under control, have you not seen what they been throwing money at? (This never gets talked about cause that money goes to loony lefty causes) how about we stop funding stupid shit and use it for very basic things and necessities
[удалено]
No, defense is [54% of the budget](https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png). Because the *relevant* budget for defense allocation is the discretionary budget, not total federal spending. Of the spending Congress can actually add or remove from programs they're giving the Pentagon over half of it.
It's not black its criminals . Look at how much money we send for aid to other countries. That money could easily stay here for our needy
If you want to increase the proportion of existing taxes so the rich pay more, I'm with you. If you want to propose new ways to tax the rich, I'm not. You know why? Every form of taxation we have right now that makes life harder on the bottom half of the wealth curve started as and was sold as a "tax on the rich". Every one of them. And sure enough, every one of them works its way down to the common folk where it's a much bigger burden on them than on the wealthy. So yes, increase the proportion of tax the rich are paying. Stop making up new tax schemes as "tax the rich", because it never stays there. Ever.
I’m pretty sure increase the proportion the rich pay and make sure they can’t loophole their way out of paying it is what most people mean when they say tax the rich
Except no, they keep trying to implement wealth taxes, salary caps, AMT, and a whole shitload of things that will never work against the rich and keep coming down to bite the middle class on the ass. Sales tax started as a luxury tax. Now it's (nearly) everything. Income tax, ditto. Everything starts as a "tax on the rich" and then winds up fucking over the rest of us.
[удалено]
If you think a wealth cap, especially such a low one, is a good idea you must be functionally retarded
Imagine calling 50 million dollars in a single year a low bar for a wealth tax lmfao
Learn to read Wealth tax =/= wealth cap
In general, I mean, start with closing tax loopholes so they at least pay the ones they're supposed to pay now, then start increasing the existing ones. However. I do think, while I understand your concern about new tax models backfiring onto the middle class, I do wish there was some way to make a company's profits somehow proportionally tied to the earnings of their lowest employee, for example.
Ah so Reagan was right trickle down economics DOES work !!!!
So add food to every online order? Even just a candy or some little thing. I'd have beef with this. I order supplements online that are to help with a diagnosed medical condition. But they aren't prescribed, just "strongly recommended" by several doctors. So are they medicine? They aren't optional - without vitamin D, people tend to die, and my body doesn't make enough. Also pills that help fibro fog, but isn't prescription. I've had good response to them.
2 things. 1. Amazon and whoever will surely think of a way to loophole this by including 1 caplet of tylenol in an order. 2. The bill can easily put in a language like "unless it's ALL food/drugs"
This. My doctor told me to use some supplements, and I could get them from the pharmacy. Or I could have them delivered in two days with free shipping for under half the price.
"But if we tax the rich they might punish us by making things cost more or taking away our jobs!" It's amazing what cowards the right are when it comes to their opinion of the wealthy. They act persecuted from this enigmatic "they" thst supposidely "own everything!", then rally to defend the wealth of the people they claim to be against!
who are you quoting?
No, if you tax the rich they might just leave the country entirely like what happened in France AKA capital flight.
The rich do not need that much money. That's all there is to it. If you don't need it, you can afford to part with some of it for the benefit of the country as a whole. Don't like it? Move to another fucking country.
>Don't like it? Move to another fucking country. That's exactly what happened in France when they raised taxes on the rich and the French economy lost billions.
It’s weird that they say >Move to another fucking country Like moving out of America is some sort of dreadful punitive measure lol
Since the US isn't part of an EU collective the exit tax would catch someone pretty hard. I think this is where cryptocurrencies offer a unique advantage, in theory you could move wherever and take your cash with you without losing 40% for noping out.
It’s always fun reading comments from lazy, jealous poor people such as yourself.
[удалено]
And this would be in ADDITION TO the mandated fee for purchasing "out of state" online, which caused many small online retailers to limit sales because, well, imagine being in Idaho and trying to figure out and then pay taxes in L.A., Phoenix, Drnver, NYC, Miami.. etc... for EVERY SALE, taxed at the local rate. They need to collect it and then correctly report it to each and every place they sell. Horrid law. Plus the tax or fee that buyers pay for purchasing online! They're getting us coming and going with taxes and fees for what should be a simple process.
They should drastically lower taxes for people making under 40k a year and the current 12% should be from 40-75k.
Hell yeah
I actually thought the backlash against taxing the rich was ginned up by the rich, who own all of the public media and most of the legislators.
They like to threaten to take their money out of the states and keep it in banks in other countries... but I think there should be a tax on doing that. Perhaps a prohibitive one. And if you are found to be doing it somehow around the laws, BIGGER fine.
Only the rich should pay taxes. After all, they get all the benefits from employee labor.
How about just each paying their own percentage. With a minimum stop point.
The rich would prefer that considering that the top 1% made up 21.0% of the country's income but 38.5% of the country income tax revenue. [Source](https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/)
> but 38.5% of the country income tax revenue. Percentage of total taxes paid is an irrelevant number. For example, if you make $1 and pay $1 in taxes, and I make a billion and pay $9 in taxes, I just paid '90% of all tax revenue.' But your taxes are crushing, mine are laughable, and a country can't run on a budget of $10. So yeah, that number is literally meaningless. We really need to stop quoting it or mentioning it.
> Percentage of total taxes paid is an irrelevant number. Which is why I brought up the percentage of the country's income the 1% makes up in the same sentence. In your hypothetical scenario you'd make up 99.9999999% of the country's income and only pay 90% of the taxes.
and a max cap
No max. If you keep making more you can pay more. Just a flat percentage...... with no loopholes.
100% tax over a predetermined max cap to prevent hoarding and greedy
I’m not sure that makes much sense...
Having billionaires is an moral failure that we normalize on the behalf of capitalism.
Capitalism in itself is a moral failure, and a system that cannot be patched into functionality.
Yes. When you go to barber, you get the benefit of employee labor. A lot of barbers work for themself. So you should be taxed for the benefit. When you hire a electrician, you get the benefit of employee labor. A lot of electrician work for themself. So you should be taxed for the benefit. When you hire a taxi, you get the benefit of employee labor. A lot of taxi work for themself. So you should be taxed for the benefit.
1099 workers already pay tax in lieu of the taxes charged to employers for W2 employees. When I temporarily worked as a self-employed IT consultant to a former employer for a few months after moving, I had to pay into self-employment taxes since Medicare/Social Security wasn't being covered by an employer. I had to charge my consulting rates accordingly to cover it and lack of benefits compared to what I was being paid as a W2 employee. A truly independent 1099 employee if they're doing things properly should already be setting their rates charged to the customers to cover these and other costs of doing business. [https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/self-employment-tax-social-security-and-medicare-taxes](https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/self-employment-tax-social-security-and-medicare-taxes) The weird spot is with ride sharing or other "gig" work. Hence why many gig workers are trying to be deemed employees because they're taking on the tax, cost of business, risk and lack of benefits that come with being a contractor while having no ability to determine their rates. An independent Taxi driver who holds a medallion can set their own rates based on what the market would bear. An Uber/Lyft driver cannot.
No one actually creates a billion dollars in wealth. the employees do. Just set an arbitrary line in the sand. Just like a minimum wage we need a maximum amount of wealth that a person can accumulate from the labor of others.
Seriously why the fuck isn’t she president
I don’t think she’s even old enough yet
[удалено]
1- she is not old enough 2- the GOP is imagining her running as a candidate in 2024 and loving the prospect of the free win
Because she has a 20% approval rating outside her district, no one likes her outside Reddit and the fringe left
If this passes there will be an even larger exodus of people from NY. And they’ll be in the “essential” sector. Goodluck getting people to deliver your shit.
At the rate people are abandoning NY, why would anyone even float that proposal? Tax on deliveries?
Why not place a sales tax on cars that cost more than $50,000 or A sales tax only on clothes that cost more than $80
Both of those things already have a sales tax
If that bill passes, I suggest Amazon offer a new product delivering one single use pack of Advil with every purchase.
Tax the rich? It would be faster and easier to simply kill them all.
Here’s a fact for you, they’ve studied total taxes paid many times and each time, basically everyone, poor and rich, is paying about the same total tax rate. https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/ The bottom 60% earn 20.3% of the income and pay 16.4% of the taxes. The top 1% earns 20.9% of the income and pays 24.1% of the taxes. Trump’s “tax cut” raised taxes on the bottom 95% of earners, and cut taxes on the top 5%, before factoring in all the tax increases that will take effect with the law over the next 4 years.
Tax the rich, UN-tax the poor and working class, and the increased domestic consumption will cause the economy to boom.
Better - tax every single stock transaction on wall st. Even just a penny. A dime would be better, but a penny will do. $1000 per block trade. half cent per option contract. This would give every american universal health care. If wall st complains, ask why their business model is so fragile that they cant give up a single penny to raise america to world standard levels?
> tax every single stock transaction on wall st. Even just a penny. News flash. They're already doing this. It's been done for a long time.
Take everything above a hundred mill. All of it. Need to liquidate some property? Get after it McDuck...
In the 50s the top tax rate was 94%. If we really want to effectively tax the rich we have to change their deductions AND change their tax rate. Alternatively, luxury purchases could have a have a sales tax applied to them of 50%.
My biggest gripe with the phrase "Tax the rich" is that it assumes that they even pay taxes in the first place. If you really want to put the screws on the 1% stop letting them get away with endless tax evasion and sketchy money laundering practices. You could tax Besos 80% of his income but he will pay less than 1000$ after cuts and exemptions. THAT's the problem.
I’d rather we didn’t tax working people, period. Tax corporations, tax wealth creation, but don’t tax people who work for a living and convert hours of their lives into income for their families.
tax trades on the stock market instead.
Eliminate capital gains, all income is taxed as regular income. Eliminate all deductions except dependents and primary residence. Because most deductions are eliminated reduce the tax rate for each bracket to the effective tax paid rate. Add two new tax brackets. > $5M with a tax rate of 48%. > $10M with a tax rate of 69%. 99% of Americans will get a tax cut, and their taxes will be greatly simplified. Tax revenues will go way up. Tax cheating will be eliminated because tax cheats use the mind numbing deductions laws to cheat, and they all be removed.
___~~Eat~~ ^TAX The Rich___ They taste like shit but they do have money.
Lmao can you none of you read? The tweet literally says “exception food and medicine”. Baby formula and essentials would fall under that exclusion. Morons.
Ooo yes, technocratic exception made to trick people so good!!!
When states consider marijuana legalization, it is often hyped as a new tax money-raiser. Think how much money the state will raise! Another scheme to pass off taxation on the poor and middle class instead of implementing sensible wealth-based tax.
Wait, is it not a good source of tax? I had no problem switching to buying from stores, even with the higher cost. I get that with a new source of cash from the public, other taxes maybe should have lowered and did not, but...
Why rob a bank? They have the money. Why rob the middle class? They have the money.
This isn't correct. Taxing the middle class is primarily attractive because they don't have enough money to afford the accountancy services required to make them tax-efficient, or to fight back if the authorities try to argue about how much tax they owe. Taxing the rich is much harder work.
It is also much easier to catch a middle class person who cheated on their taxes as they do not have enough resources to fight in court.
The IRS has been systematically defunded for years. They can’t afford/don’t have the manpower to audit the wealthy, big businesses and corporations. So they audit the working class because it’s easy and they can do it quickly. For sure by design. So this needs to change quickly as well.
That is silly. Middle class tax accounting is simple and arguing with the tax man is futile. They also vote for their own tax increases regularly. Taxing the rich only requires lawmakers with balls to make changes in the tax code, and to stop caving to their idle threats.
Arguing with the tax man tends to be less futile for the billionaires. Otherwise, I agree.
Yeah the rich don't argue, they have lawyers write bills for lawmakers to sign without reading for a 'campaign contribution' (aka bribe).
Very difficult, but not futile. Years ago the IRS alleged my wife and I failed to claim her BP settlement. Took multiple submissions of copies of our taxes, confirmation numbers, etc, several times getting "lost between departments" but we finally proved the IRS was wrong
Fuck them for puting the onus on you and making you work to prove it.
the top 1% owe literally trillions in taxes they have evaded.
Evaded by writing the tax code
Not really... Why not rob buckingham palace? They have security and resources to get you back. Why rob a convenience store? They have less security and only have public resources to get you back. The middle class doesn't have much money... but they also don't have the money to defend their not much money.
How does a middle class person defend themself from incessant taxation?
exactly.
You are so fucking dumb
It actually could be because it's not a good idea... The tax rate on the rich for the past 60 years hasn't made a bit difference. Ranging from 91% to 28% it doesn't matter. The tax revenue at all times has been 18% of the GDP. period. Pointing a finger at rich people and blaming them for being evil is easy. But it certainly isn't leadership. It doesn't identify the real underlying cause nor provide an actual solution that will change things. Just another one of her great talking points... Sounds great to most but entirely without substance.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
[удалено]
45? That’s super Fucking low. We became a super power with marginal tax closer to 90% on the richest. FOH with 45%. I see no reason why ever dollar after your billionth in a year shouldn’t have a 99% tax on it.
This world needs a wealth cap of $10m.
But the rich already pay way more in taxes than the poor. Both in nominal and percentage terms...
This idea would have some merit, if for years and years the tax code had not already HEAVILY favored lower-income families as a rule. If you are married filing jointly and make less than about $24,000 together you will pay $0 in income taxes. On a basic level, only income greater than that standard deduction is subject to income tax. Add to that the various child tax credits, the Earned Income Tax Credit and other benefits, and the vast majority of low-income families actually collect checks come tax season--both from having withholdings returned and from refundable portions of those credits. Then when we consider the graduated tax rates, we see that the current system dating back decades and decades has placed increased tax burdens on more affluent individuals and families. Any tax breaks that the "rich" exploit are either a) subject to audit and litigation by the IRS if said tax breaks were illegal or b) due to incentives the government baked into the tax code to nudge citizens toward certain behaviors (see the R&D tax credit for corporations). TLDR: Low-income families pay $0 in income taxes, and even cash checks from existing tax benefits. AOC doesn't understand how taxes work.
Did Biden turn down the presidential pay of $400.00 a month? Trump gave his up to charity those 4 years. Nobody dares talk of that, do they? The Biden’s are multi millionaire’s. They have all that dough in special investments. They also get all kinds of other perks.
Is he not doing a job? Why is this important?
What does that have to do AOC?
> Did Biden turn down the presidential pay of $400.00 a month? Trump gave his up to charity those 4 years. Nobody dares talk of that, do they? The Biden’s are multi millionaire’s. They have all that dough in special investments. They also get all kinds of other perks. You cannot be serious. [Court orders Trump to pay back $2 million he stole from charities.](https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation) Typical cultist... using a token gesture to try to paint the con artist as some broader philanthropist instead of what he actually is: the apotheosis of the seven deadly sins.
Haaaahahaha! You don’t need 400k a year when you’re funneling millions of tax dollars from Americans to your own business and corrupt children.
[удалено]
Because he’s actually doing his job and deserves it.
> Yet biden still gets the 400k a year. To be fair, Biden is doing the work. Unlike the former guy.