NDP Grassroots Lobbying For 70% Tax Rate For UltraRich

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
NDP Grassroots Lobbying For 70% Tax Rate For UltraRich

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is proposing 70% Tax Rate for Ultra Rich to Help Pay for for Green Infrastructure saying

You know, you look at our tax rates back in the '60s and when you have a progressive tax rate system, your tax rate, you know, let's say, from zero to $75,000 may be ten percent or 15 percent, et cetera. But once you get to, like, the tippy tops, on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent. That doesn't mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more.

The twitter account (NDP Grassroots) is running with this tweeting

! South of border in : 'Fine,call me a radical then': boldly+rightly suggests 70% tax rate 4 UltraRich as way 2 help pay 4 . AWESOME 2 watch stifling 1980s neoliberal political consensus of voodoo economics on its way OUT of "mainstream gospel"

https://twitter.com/NDPGrassroots/status/1081301210685001728

Derrick O'Keefe (co-founder of Ricochet) has expanded on this policy pitch by tweeting in a long thread

Idea for Jagmeet Singh & federal NDP: Emulate and call for a ~70% top marginal tax rate in Canada. Could totally reframe 2019 federal election debate.

NDP needs to go big or go home in 2019. Make this campaign about taxing the rich to fund new national social programs like childcare, massive new public housing investments, and Green New Deal style urgent transition to renewable energy.

In 2015 Mulcair-led NDP ruled out higher top marginal tax rate, allowing Trudeau Liberals to outflank them on crucial issue.

A 70%+ top tax bracket was the norm in Canada for decades. Neoliberal dogma that *all* major parties bought into has been discredited, people are ready to get back to some semblance of tax fairness.

Bigger picture: Worldwide, democratic socialism is back. The federal NDP will either embrace it or become irrelevant.

On that characteristically understated note ;) I’ll wind up this mini thread on the coming federal elxn.

https://twitter.com/derrickokeefe/status/1081658629139226624

josh

The NDP backtracked on an estate tax under Layton.  I’d be surprised if they advocated for that high of a marginal tax rate now.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Things like this have to be the kind of stuff the NDP stands for this year.  There are NO votes to be won by sounding even vaguely similar to the Liberal policy spectrum.

NorthReport

josh wrote:

The NDP backtracked on an estate tax under Layton.  I’d be surprised if they advocated for that high of a marginal tax rate now.

Which is worse or more deceitful?

Backtracking on a death tax political promise because of the political heat (NDP) or backtracting on PR because you never had any intention of of going ahead with it in the firest place (Liberals) 

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

josh wrote:

The NDP backtracked on an estate tax under Layton.  I’d be surprised if they advocated for that high of a marginal tax rate now.

Which is worse or more deceitful?

Backtracking on a death tax political promise because of the political heat (NDP) or backtracting on PR because you never had any intention of of going ahead with it in the firest place (Liberals) 

I dislike what-aboutism just as much when it comes from the NDP as any other party. When the NDP does it to avoid uncomfortable questions the party suffers.

I don't care to rank parties in how bad they are on something. Isn't it enough to say it is unacceptable?

josh

NorthReport wrote:

josh wrote:

The NDP backtracked on an estate tax under Layton.  I’d be surprised if they advocated for that high of a marginal tax rate now.

Which is worse or more deceitful?

Backtracking on a death tax political promise because of the political heat (NDP) or backtracting on PR because you never had any intention of of going ahead with it in the firest place (Liberals) 

 

"Death tax"?  Spoken like a true right-winger.

JeffWells

Since Singh ran, and won, advocating means-testing Old Age Security I won't be holding my breath for the party to pick this fight.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Problem. Make a suggestion to raise taxes by 1% and kill your political career. I don't  know if Canadians are as militant as the US in regards to raising taxes. EVEN if by raising taxes by a penny would improve their lives.

AOC is the future for Democrats and will be loved by all except for RWNJ's. But that is only about 30% of the population.

pietro_bcc

alan smithee wrote:

Problem. Make a suggestion to raise taxes by 1% and kill your political career. I don't  know if Canadians are as militant as the US in regards to raising taxes. EVEN if by raising taxes by a penny would improve their lives.

AOC is the future for Democrats and will be loved by all except for RWNJ's. But that is only about 30% of the population.

On what do you base this conclusion? People and pundits like to spout truisms about what people think and about what would happen if a politician ran on something, but thankfully we don't have to speculate, we have polls that actually measure what people think.

Since the topic is AOC's proposal to raise the marginal tax rate on the richest Americans, lets see what Americans think about how much taxes the richest Americans pay.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx

The results are very stable throughout the years so I'll just post the most recent results.

As I read off some different groups, please tell me if you think they are paying their FAIR share in federal taxes, paying too MUCH or paying too LITTLE? First, how about ... ?

Upper-income people

Fair share: 26%        Too much: 10%        Too little: 62%          No Opinion: 2%

And as a bonus

corporations

Fair share: 24%          Too much: 7%           Too little: 66%           No opinion: 3%

Factually speaking the polls show that Americans believe the rich and corporations don't pay enough taxes, that is a fact, not opinion. Raising taxes on the rich and corporations would be a popular policy, the problem isn't that any politician proposing this would lose their elections, its that no politicians have the courage to introduce such policy because the pundits and papers say that voters believe that taxes on the rich are too high. (And in the US there's the added problem of the rich and corporations funding politicians and they would lose those "donations" if they ever proposed raising taxes on the rich.)