I've been sleeping on AOC. She has the establishment shook.

[Dr. Acula]

What are these countries you speak of with free college? And strengthening primary school will definitely make college cheaper and more effective because it will be for the people who really want to go, not dumber down so everyone can go.

Avoiding the semantics of "free", he most likely referring to free as far as upfront costs. Plenty of countries have this. This isn't revolutionary or new and it works in the countries that its implemented without societal collapse

Argentina Yes
Austria Yes
Brazil Yes Yes, but classes are taught in Portuguese.
Czech Republic Yes Free tuition in the Czech language, not free in other languages.
Denmark Yes
Egypt Yes
Finland Yes Yes
France Yes Available to all European Union (EU) citizens.
Germany Yes Yes
Greece Yes Yes, but classes are taught in Greek.
Iceland Yes Yes
Kenya Yes Free public tuition for high-scoring secondary school students.
Luxembourg Yes Yes
Malaysia Yes
Morocco Yes
Norway Yes Yes, but living expenses are high.
Panama Yes Yes
Poland Yes
Scotland Yes
Slovenia Yes Available to all EU citizens.
Spain Yes
Sweden Yes Available to all EU citizens. Ph.D. programs are tuition-free.
Turkey Yes
Uruguay Yes

As far as medicare and medicaid, the average user of both programs are more satisfied with the programs than the user of private insurer. Just because fraud happens doesn't mean you should get rid of a program that works. This think is essentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater thinking. What you do is strengthen the program by minimizing the risks of fraud not completely get rid of the program all together.

 

[Elim Garak]

Social security probably won't exist when we are old enough to collect. Even if it was, the money isn't adjusted for inflation, so every generation gets less than they put in.

My business deals with medicaid and Medicare. The amount of fraud going on is eye popping. Every week I'm hearing about different providers fudging the books, or charging for services that aren't needed. Refusing to pay employees, making them work salaried positions to avoid paying overtime. And the worst part is, most of those people will never be caught. There is almost no oversight. When I see people get busted its because a disgruntled employee called the Medicare fraud hotline.

What are these countries you speak of with free college? And strengthening primary school will definitely make college cheaper and more effective because it will be for the people who really want to go, not dumber down so everyone can go.

Of course the programs aren't perfect and have fraud but that has noting to do with socialism this is simply the human greed factor which to me is more representative by capitalism lol. As for countries that have free tuition a simple google search can answer that. A few to list are France, Kenya, Germany, Brazil, Egypt and many others.

 

[ELESDEE616]

This thread is sad. Black people been let down so many times by government intervention, so called "welfare", and other big government policies, and now they got us out here championing socialism.

Smh.

Taxing the rich to hell sounds good until you realize that anyone making over 10 million a year can just pick up and move anywhere in the country. And when they leave who do you think is on the hook for all those promises?

The ideas of socialism (Democratic or otherwise) hinges on the notion that people dont mind helping others. That works excellently in small, racially homogeneous countries. In the USA, nah. If you said we want free everything for women and children, yea that's cool. But people are going to have a real problem paying 50 to 60% of their income to support grown able bodied men. Especially men of other races. I know this is the coli and yall think all white men are rich, evil, masterminds, but your blood will boil when you find out you're busting your ass and paying high ass taxes while cletus just hit free rehab for the 7th time for his meth addiction and hasn't worked in 10 years.

But I'll leave ya'll to the circle jerk tho.

Socialism is about making sure a bigger percentage of labor profit goes into the hands of the workers who produce the product.

Has nothing to do with supporting those who dont contribute to that pot.

Your idea and knowledge of socialism and its intent is sophomoric and just a regurgitation of Republican talking points. Keep caping for your masters though.

 

[Thanos]

I think the hipster left and the right are just obessed with these girl for no reason.
The fact that people are completely ignoring all the new progressive Congressman and women in other states says a lot about the media making hero’s out of certain people because they are marketable.


Both sides blowing smoke up her ass for no reason other than she’s young and Latina.

To an extent, I understand where you are coming from. She's definitely marketable. If you had someone of different racial/age demographics, I don't think they would get this kind of press.

 

[ELESDEE616]

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

"There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade. However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s."

This website is starting to make me feel like when I used to go to church and ask questions about the bible.

Black people had a nice run becoming less religious and more critically thinking but I guess politics has filled that void.

Already been debunked earlier in the thread

There are a few obvious reasons why the taxes the rich actually paid in the 1950s were so much lower than the confiscatory top rates that sat on the books. For one, the max tax rates on investment income were far lower than on wages and salaries, which gave a lot of wealthy individuals some relief. Tax avoidance may have also been a big problem. Moreover, there simply weren’t that many extraordinarily rich households. Those fabled 90 percent tax rates only bit at incomes over $200,000, the equivalent of more than $2 million in today’s dollars. As Greenberg notes, the tax may have only applied to 10,000 families. To Greenberg, the takeaway from this is simple: Progressives should stop fixating on the tax rates from 60 years ago. “All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.”

I’m not convinced. Effective tax rates on 1 percenters may not have fallen by half, as some on the left might be tempted to imagine. But they are down by about 6 percentage points at a time when the wealthy earn a vastly larger share of the national income. That drop represents a lot of money. Moreover, as Greenberg admits, tax rates on top 0.1 percent have fallen by about one-fifth since their 1950s heights. That rather severely undercuts the idea that taxes on the wealthy haven’t fallen “much.” Moreover, there may be reasons to support higher taxes beyond their ability to raise revenue. One popular theory among left-leaning intellectualsright now—advanced by Piketty, Saez, and their protegée Stefanie Stantcheva—is that high tax rates actually ease income inequality by discouraging CEOs and professionals from demanding exorbitantly high pay for their services.* In other words, thanks to high tax rates, people didn’t bother trying to get as rich. After all, there’s no point in bargaining for a giant bonus if the government is going to clip off most of it.

I wouldn’t say the theory has been accepted as a consensus fact at this point, but it’s certainly alive and being taken seriously. So the real tax rates rich Americans paid in the 1950s may not have been so stratospherically high as some progressives assume. But they also may have helped create a more egalitarian society. That seems worth considering.

Slate’s Use of Your Data

 

[HellRell804]

Of course the programs aren't perfect and have fraud but that has noting to do with socialism this is simply the human greed factor which to me is more representative by capitalism lol. As for countries that have free tuition a simple google search can answer that. A few to list are France, Kenya, Germany, Brazil, Egypt and many others.

You cant eliminate greed though. You ever wonder why in socialist countries, the inner party lives lavishly while other segments of the population live badly? Greed is always going to exist, the only way to mitigate it is to promote competition. Enough competition where its impossible to hoard wealth because you have to fend off new innovations and advancements. What we have now are companies who gain a ridiculous market share then lobby the government to shut off any competition.

Under democratic socialism that doesn't change. You think exxon is going to allow the us to move to hemp based or solar based energy? You think the insurance companies are going to release patents so generic medicines can be made to save the government some money? If anything all of that corruption gets worse because the average American wont have any need to look at the books. It's all paid for anyway, just like my medicaid example.

I also wanna thank you for debating your point civilly and not immediately jumping to name calling. That's becoming increasingly rare as more people shift to the extremes of the political spectrum. Much respect.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

This was gonna happen sooner or later where you have an outside a hard left wing radical looking to reform the party by their bare hands... there needs to be MORE like her... The democratic party needs to get down or lay down...

I just love the fear she instills in these fools...

Check out Ortega from virgina ...no idea how he lost his race tho. His talking points were on point and unapologetic

 

[ELESDEE616]

You cant eliminate greed though. You ever wonder why in socialist countries, the inner party lives lavishly while other segments of the population live badly? Greed is always going to exist, the only way to mitigate it is to promote competition. Enough competition where its impossible to hoard wealth because you have to fend off new innovations and advancements. What we have now are companies who gain a ridiculous market share then lobby the government to shut off any competition.

Under democratic socialism that doesn't change. You think exxon is going to allow the us to move to hemp based or solar based energy? You think the insurance companies are going to release patents so generic medicines can be made to save the government some money? If anything all of that corruption gets worse because the average American wont have any need to look at the books. It's all paid for anyway, just like my medicaid example.

I also wanna thank you for debating your point civilly and not immediately jumping to name calling. That's becoming increasingly rare as more people shift to the extremes of the political spectrum. Much respect.

What countries are those? Sounds like you're describing the USA.


Huh crazy that all these countries tried with free healthcare, unions, negotiated wages and cheap schooling have better quality of life?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings



Let me guess, America needs more capitalism to keep up

 

[HellRell804]

Already been debunked earlier in the thread

There are a few obvious reasons why the taxes the rich actually paid in the 1950s were so much lower than the confiscatory top rates that sat on the books. For one, the max tax rates on investment income were far lower than on wages and salaries, which gave a lot of wealthy individuals some relief. Tax avoidance may have also been a big problem. Moreover, there simply weren’t that many extraordinarily rich households. Those fabled 90 percent tax rates only bit at incomes over $200,000, the equivalent of more than $2 million in today’s dollars. As Greenberg notes, the tax may have only applied to 10,000 families. To Greenberg, the takeaway from this is simple: Progressives should stop fixating on the tax rates from 60 years ago. “All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.”

I’m not convinced. Effective tax rates on 1 percenters may not have fallen by half, as some on the left might be tempted to imagine. But they are down by about 6 percentage points at a time when the wealthy earn a vastly larger share of the national income. That drop represents a lot of money. Moreover, as Greenberg admits, tax rates on top 0.1 percent have fallen by about one-fifth since their 1950s heights. That rather severely undercuts the idea that taxes on the wealthy haven’t fallen “much.” Moreover, there may be reasons to support higher taxes beyond their ability to raise revenue. One popular theory among left-leaning intellectualsright now—advanced by Piketty, Saez, and their protegée Stefanie Stantcheva—is that high tax rates actually ease income inequality by discouraging CEOs and professionals from demanding exorbitantly high pay for their services.* In other words, thanks to high tax rates, people didn’t bother trying to get as rich. After all, there’s no point in bargaining for a giant bonus if the government is going to clip off most of it.

I wouldn’t say the theory has been accepted as a consensus fact at this point, but it’s certainly alive and being taken seriously. So the real tax rates rich Americans paid in the 1950s may not have been so stratospherically high as some progressives assume. But they also may have helped create a more egalitarian society. That seems worth considering.

Slate’s Use of Your Data

Rich people have many ways to dodge taxes, but you forget there is also a nuclear option. Any person making 10 million or more a year can literally throw a dart at a world map, pick up and move without any hassle. So then what? Do we make it illegal for them to leave?

 

[ELESDEE616]

Rich people have many ways to dodge taxes, but you forget there is also a nuclear option. Any person making 10 million or more a year can literally throw a dart at a world map, pick up and move without any hassle. So then what? Do we make it illegal for them to leave?

If they wanna go live in some tiny island somewhere instead of the splendor that is America because they cant afford a 100 yard Yacht that's fine, just strip them of their citizenship.


Crazy how we dont have alot of Japanese billionaires living in the US?

 

[ELESDEE616]

Gotta go run some errands but if you are thinking about Democratic Socialism you can read more about us here

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) -


Currently 55,000 members including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and 15 elected members of government in 13 states

You can find your local chapter here

 

[Dr. Acula]

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

"There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade. However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s."

This website is starting to make me feel like when I used to go to church and ask questions about the bible.

Black people had a nice run becoming less religious and more critically thinking but I guess politics has filled that void.

Your link adds some justification for why this discrepancy exists which are worth consideration.

There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s.

• The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
• Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
• Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the top 1 percent.

Numbers of billionaires and wealth inequality has increased. So the number of people who fell into the "1%" today is a larger number with a larger amount of wealth that rarely existed in the 50's after changes starting all the way back to Carter (i.e. trilaterial commisison).

I will agree with you that expecting 70% taxes to be paid and followed is too burdensome to work. I like AOC but I disagree with her on this issue, but its rare that anyone can bat 1000. However, she is right on most issues and if anything is moving the left back to the left after decades of the left being manipulated by right wing rhetoric to the point that our ideas of "liberal" are moderate to right in any other country. I don't necessarily think the marginal tax should be 70% but high 40% is not too high in my opinion. Right now, as of 2019, the top rate is 37%. Can afford to be higher imo.

 

[HellRell804]

If they wanna go live in some tiny island somewhere instead of the splendor that is America because they cant afford a 100 yard Yacht that's fine, just strip them of their citizenship.


Crazy how we dont have alot of Japanese billionaires living in the US?

Lol but the whole basis of your point is that they are going to be the ones to pay for these programs. So if they leave then what? The top 1% pay more in raw tax dollars than the bottom 90% combined. So then what, we confiscate wealth out the door like Nazi Germany?

What happens when vdot workers and electrical workers and other dangerous professions decide they want one of those cushy green new deal jobs? Somebody has to do the dirty work. They don't risk their lives everyday because they care about us. They do it for the money. So who does those jobs? Oh, forced labor camps.

And that's why socialism doesn't work. It turns into the government playing wack a mole with your personal freedoms to fulfill outlandish promises.



I'm not even advocating for the system we have now. Its corrupt to the core. But so is socialism. Just trading corporate overlords for ideological overlords.

 

[wtfyomom]

This thread is sad. Black people been let down so many times by government intervention, so called "welfare", and other big government policies, and now they got us out here championing socialism.

Smh.

Taxing the rich to hell sounds good until you realize that anyone making over 10 million a year can just pick up and move anywhere in the country. And when they leave who do you think is on the hook for all those promises?

The ideas of socialism (Democratic or otherwise) hinges on the notion that people dont mind helping others. That works excellently in small, racially homogeneous countries. In the USA, nah. If you said we want free everything for women and children, yea that's cool. But people are going to have a real problem paying 50 to 60% of their income to support grown able bodied men. Especially men of other races. I know this is the coli and yall think all white men are rich, evil, masterminds, but your blood will boil when you find out you're busting your ass and paying high ass taxes while cletus just hit free rehab for the 7th time for his meth addiction and hasn't worked in 10 years.

But I'll leave ya'll to the circle jerk tho.

you think YOURE gonna pay 60-70% of your income ? like i said straw man all day

 

[wtfyomom]

why do people confuse socialism with authoritarianism ?