You are correct. That knowledge is far above my pay grade.
Which is what I was saying. Purchased social-media promotion would buy him more votes, of course, which is why he might become a spoiler. But the platform he’s outlined so far is appealing only to the one-percenters.
Excellent point. (AKA “The Donald Trump Story”.)
Trump was very well known due to his hit TV show so even without CNN etc he probably would have done very well in the race. and the premise of the show was that he was a great businessman.
Gary Busey isn’t President, so maybe we should count our blessings.
The drive time talk show host on local radio here in Baltimore, a self-described “centrist” (centrist defined as “claiming the Democratic base is way too extreme” and never ever talking about Donald Trump – last night’s three hours was mostly consumed with Liz Warren’s self identification as native American on an old form) also complained last night that Howard Schultz wasn’t getting a fair look from Dem voters, who should obviously identify with his “centrist” platforms and admire his skill in attaining great wealth from humble beginnings.
That of course is the lie of Schultz’s “Centrist” claims. He spends ninety-nine percent of his time complaining the Democrats are too extreme, because they’re the ones who might tax him a little more.
The fact CNN is giving free advertising to him solely because he’s rich is a disgrace.
CNN has been a disgrace for quite some time now. And 70% is more than just “a little more”.
That’s a *marginal *rate, one that applies only in eight digits, *not *a base rate. So it isn’t going to affect any payer’s lifestyle.
That would be worse?
Long before that. He got the show *because *he was already a famous media clown, and had been since the Seventies.
OK, you don’t like 70%. Maybe we can compromise on 60%. OK, 59%, you’ve talked me into it, this is the best I can do. All right, 58%, but I gotta get approval from the sales manager for that.
The only reason for the 70% number is that we used to have marginal tax rates on the super-rich that were that high. Then under Reagan we dropped them, and 40 years later it turns out that the super-rich are much much much richer, while everyone else is treading water. It turns out to be an empirical fact that a rising tide lifts the boats of the super-rich much more than it lifts the boats of Joe Meatball and Sally Housecoat and Eddie Punch-clock.
70% is just a number trotted out to show that we once used to have high taxes on the super-rich and it didn’t cause a Mad Max apocalypse.
And it turns out that raising taxes on the rich is a super popular policy. Like, really popular, not just among Socialists. Even a guy like Donald Trump at one point pretended that he was in favor of higher taxes on the rich, that’s how popular it is.
And it turns out that cutting taxes for the rich is extremely unpopular. And since that’s Schultz’s core policy, his appeal is limited to billionaires who wish Trump wasn’t so vulgar.
Right, intended to apply only on income amounts over $50 million. It’s entirely possible that Schultz never had that much income in any year ever, so it would have no impact on him at all.
Huh? Maybe I’ve been reading poor sources of journalism again, but Vox said:
Gosh I have no idea how I would possibly get by on only 30% of my yearly income above 10 Million dollars. I wonder where the nearest soup kitchen is from me, I’d probably have to sell my car, so I hope its walking distance…
It’s not a question of whether the poverty line should be $10M or $50M. It’s a question of whether Evil Economist is right and Vox is full of shit, or Evil Economist is wrong and Vox is correct. I’m good either way, but I would like to know.
Regardless of the bracket, whether it begins at $10m or $50m, it’s still a marginal rate. You got that part, right?
(Also, “poverty line??”)
.
Freudian slip I’m assuming. What with all the poor persecuted billionaires these days. I’m sorry, persons of means.
Yes, I get that part.
It was an attempt at humor (apparently too subtle or off-key) based off Airbeck’s “I wonder where the nearest soup kitchen is from me, I’d probably have to sell my car, so I hope its walking distance”
Yes that was called sarcasm
You know, whether Ocasio-Cortez thinks that we should have a marginal rate of 70% on incomes of 10 million or 50 million is somewhat interesting. But it’s completely theoretical, because it’s just one freshman representative suggesting a policy.
I’m curious about all you Republican socialism fighters. What do you think? Do you think the super-rich are taxed too heavily? Too lightly? Or did we somehow get it exactly perfect with the latest tax cuts for the super-rich? Or are the super-rich paying too much, and we need to finally give them the tax relief they deserve?
The super-rich? You mean the Job Creators, don’t you?
Please. Persons of means. That is now the preferred nomenclature.
Beats “capitalist pigs”, I guess.