So apparently this lady is about to leap from the Bronx all the way to the House Financial Service Committee with Maxine Waters at the chair. What are your thoughts on this appointment?
| +40 | SpaceX IPO - what are your thoughts | 9 | 5m |
| +28 | Should I use Claude or chatgpt? | 15 | 6h |
| +21 | Funny Things to Say to Interns | 7 | 9h |
| +17 | How did you meet your significant other/partner? | 13 | 22h |
| +17 | London's future as a financial centre | 18 | 1d |
| The Great Debate | 9 | 10h | |
| +7 | E ink/electronic notepads | 4 | 23h |
| +6 | Stay Sharp All Day With Best Modvigil 200 MG Tablet | 0 | 19h |
| +6 | Test post will be deleted automatically. | 11 | 1d |
| +5 | get a model before you model | 3 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Ok?
The people will get what they deserve. What they voted for.
"Democratic socialist" seriously wtf. She supports a 70% marginal tax rate........ France did something similar, she should check how that worked out. She has a BA in Economics yet she clearly doesn't know a thing about the economy. Disastrous thing to have someone like her in Financial Services Committee. We need less Govt intervention when it comes to Business, we can't have people like her who think total govt control over all business affairs is the answer. We can't forget that we're a capitalist country. She is easily Trump's ticket to 2020. I'm not even a supporter but people like her make the decision very easy.
She supports a 70% marginal tax rate........ on income over $10,000,000. Let's be clear when we're talking about what AOC supports. This doesn't affect PE/HF carry because that is taxed as capital gains. This barely even affects CEO compensation as that is largely comprised of stock options.
conservatives: we’re the party of economic expertise! also conservatives, talking to people making $50k at best: she wants to tax you at 70%!!!
The U.S. has has high marginal tax rates numerous times in its history and during periods of higher growth than we currently enjoy. Other countries have put a very high marginal tax rate on astronomical income to strong results as well. Other countries have done it poorly. Like any policy, it needs to be wielded properly.
Why does it matter what level of income it impacts, or who is affected?
By brushing off this policy with "oh that will never affect me", or "won't even affect CEOs", you're minimizing how insane a 70% tax rate is, no matter who it impacts.
At no point, should the government take 70% of your income, ever, end of story.
Right. She claims she can finance countless trillions of dollars in spending by taxing only the super rich. It's a detestable lie that she's peddling.
You want bankers to decide how Congress regulates finance?
Are you satisfied with the way finances are currently regulated? What about your satisfaction with Congress? If you're satisfied with either, your judgement is highly questionable.
Do you think AOC out of all the people out there knows anything about Finance or Economics?
She must have missed the day when they talked about supply and demand.
Indeed only time will tell if AOC can deliver on anything.
However, the 70% marginal tax rate is far from new. The US had that 70% rate and far higher for decades.
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-historical-table-23
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-…
The better question might be: can the revenues from the supposed 70% manifest anywhere near the $700M over 10 years that's being claimed by AOC. One of the tax policy bodies is saying based on their math and estimates, it would be closer to $290M.
That was a war economy and the 94% top marginal rate isn't a solidarity contribution, it's a survival one. It stays high through the 50s because Soviets had developed the Warsaw Pact and the menace of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was incredibly high.
In 1964, it's slashed again. Not a random year. Then they start falling significantly from 1981 (Reagan effect) to the decades low in 1990. A key component of Reaganomics is free flow of capital, which starts the boom of tax havens. Meaning if the tax is too high, you bring your capital elsewhere. Which is exactly what would happen in case of a 70% top marginal tax again. Either you revert globalization and destroy free flow of capital or almost nobody is going to pay that. When I'll see tax havens being embargoed, I'll believe it can work. Until then, AOC is a moron.
There's also zero need for survival contributions like in a war economy, just like there's no longer a nationalist solidarity sentiment by UHNW individuals to preserve America from a hostile militarist threat. Soros and Browder might despise Russia and fund endless initiatives against it, but their income is well-protected in the Cayman and philantropic foundations. Does anyone really think they'll bring back their capital to the US to pay for AOC ''Green New Deal''?
And that's what happens when a side is run by hypocrites at the top and idiots at the bottom.
I've read some interesting stuff on spending increases like the New Deal taking place to get America back to work and stimulate the middle class after the great Wars. A lot of that was failed policy, but hindsight is 20/20. Any interesting reads for war spending and revenue generation, this tax stuff you're talking about?
People forget that war is the only reason to tax the rich
Agreed, context is important. We've had booms, busts, depressions, recessions, crashes and everything in between, along with all the various fixes in regards to raising/lowering of interest rates and other instruments to stem off/boost the economy. Busts, crises and booms are an always-existing aspect of the capitalist system. Yes, we’ve had war economies and we’ve had bubbles of all types, tech and real estate and more.
Tax rates are only one facet or angle, regardless of how high they are or could be and there are many arguments and articles saying that those rates of 70%, 80% and 90% were not actually realized/collected. Certainly tax avoidance, via evasion and under-reporting, were utilized during those higher-rate periods, just as they are even during periods with lower rates.
And yet the DJIA, since 1896 continues to creep up ever higher [yes, with dips and corrections along the way] with each and every economic tribulation or triumph, regardless of where tax rates are.
It’s certainly a very a complex thing and I’m not suggesting I have the solution, but while tax hikes [major or otherwise] can something sap growth, I don’t see higher taxes as something that will reduce people’s ambitions to make money and invest money.
If America remains slave to corporations and continues to not make incremental improvements to social programs (healthcare especially and education to a lesser extent) to address the needs of the lower-middle class/poor there will be a truly frightening socialist wave. She is just part of that.
Not an american. but the worry is that this is the trend in First world countries, especially with low-growth being the new normal. It's like mr trump and ms cortez are two extremes, but only for the moment. The worry is that they may be viewed as moderates compared to who is to come in the future as politics becomes more ferocious and divided. Kind of frightening to think about, but hopefully will it not be reality.
I fully agree with this sentiment and that more should be done to address these needs. I just dont understand how you can simultaneously advocate for an ever increasing welfare state and lax borders that overwhelmingly bring in low skilled immigrants. The two are incompatible and create a ponzi scheme that will crash at some point.
She,Bernie, and Warren need to leave governemnt
This is the same genius who said we could pay for the Medicare for all bullshit with $21 trillion in excess pentagon spending
I hear AOC “runs” social media.
I got MS because Trump "runs" social media.
Their exploits would likely make great South Park episodes.
I find it troubling that your average Joe doesn't seem to have the faintest clue how marginal taxation works.
Nor purported financial experts on this forum apparently.
95% of this forum is kids who read Atlas Shrugged last summer and just finished their first microeconomics course so you better believe they are experts
Why does America have such an affinity for mentally disabled politicians? Is my thought on the matter. FYI she's from Westchester not the Bronx, this is similar to Kamala Harris never mentioning her Indian mother in any interviews and claiming to be from Oakland.
good to know, thanks
She was born in the Bronx and moved to Westchester (about 25 miles from the Bronx) when she was young kid.
John McCain was born in Germany. He never claimed to be from Germany. I was born in Alexandria Hospital in Virginia. I'm not "from" Alexandria, VA because I spent the first few months of my life there. It's intellectually dishonest to say you're from the Bronx when you grew up in Westchester.
I find it absolutely amazing. Now, let's start with the fact that Maxine Waters is more attractive than she's smart. AOC is dumber than her, significantly so. She also enjoys a massive support among liberal academics like Krugman, Pettifor and Mazzuccato, who regularly talk to her about politicies, so it's a good time to see the product of education in practice.
It'll be spectacular. Tax and law consultancies essentially exist to find loopholes in the system for their clients. Regulation is on avereage 5 to 10 years behind tech and business in the best cases. Now you have Waters and AOC is charge of keeping up with that. I personally welcome the next recession, just like I welcome the ''democratic socialist'' takeover. The GOP at least has the decency to distance itself from Steve King and similar extremists. Democrats cherrypick their own and give them a platform. Expect fireworks.
“The GOP at least has the decency to distance itself from Steve King and similar extremists.”
Lol you’re trolling right? Name some other similar extremists that Republicans have distanced themselves from? The thing is, it’s tough for them to distanc themselves from extremists because almost ALL of them of them are extremists.
Take a look at this graph showing political ideology of the House from 1947-2014. It isn’t even close where the extremists are.
LOL, Steve King has been making racist comments as a Congressman for 10 years, and the major GOP leaders were campaigning with him as recently as this past mid-term election. Trump, who watches cable news 10 hours a day, claims he hadn’t kept up with King’s comments, because he needs to keep flirting with the inbred white supremacy wing of MAGA world. GTFO.
Also chuckled when I read his Steve King comment
She's young and pretty, which is rare for a politician. I don't consider that a skill. The combination allows her to say incredibly stupid things and get away with it. If Tomi Lahren decided to run for the GOP it'd be the same.
I think that they all sit on committees. Her background does not suggest that she is an expert in finance but if that is the standard, very few people, if any, would be qualified to sit on the finance committee. Most of these politicians have legal backgrounds.
I’m just waiting for postal banking and the freebie program it really will be. Don’t have to pay back the loans.
Does anyone else think about Trump getting simply mad when AOC leads a revolt, dancing on social media, because socialism's cool and stuff? That big beautiful orange head turning pinkish like a setting sun, and AOC screaming at the top of her baby lungs for her version of equity and shared responsibility? Then nazi Europeans and gestapo clowns cheering it all on across the pond? We actually have all the elements waiting for a nice long world conflict. Get your coca cola, popcorn, and movie tickets ready, because things might change.
First off, no True 1st Term Representative should serve on any committee in their first term in office. Simply put, giving a Freshman Representative a seat on any committee, unless skills and background are uniquely suited for the committee they are nominated for. I honestly believe that this gives them power that they should not have before fully acclimating to the Halls of Congress. When it comes to the exception - having the skills and background that make them uniquely suited for serving on a committee - I'm referring to, for example, something like Representatives McSally (US Air Force Vet), Ratcliffe and Katko (both of whom were former Federal Prosecutors), being nominated for the Homeland Security Committee. Likewise, if you are a former member of the house (such as former Reps. Bilbray, Campbell and Car, who served at least two non-consecutive terms), you're not new and aren't getting used to being in Congress. I know it can be seen as paying your dues, but for a first-term Representatives, the first term should be about establishing yourself and paying your dues.
While I can argue that the political issues that I have with AOC on the Financial Services committee are ideologically driven, I'm going to give this a wait and see approach given the strife she's causing within her own party. If she continues to piss off members of her own party, this appointment may be absolutely pointless because no one will want to work with her in pushing her own agenda. If she can turn that around, then the first few months provide some basis to judge her agenda and what she is really trying to do. It'll be interesting no matter what to see how things fare.
You guys realize that Jeff Bezos pays himself 81K a year? That's a 22% rate. No seriously wealthy person is ever going to claim $10M in annual salary. Most of those guys will have had LLCs or other tax shielding structures in place and pay capital gains at best.
I imagine the folks who'd get caught in the AOC trap are various Hollywood entertainers (Ha! Let them eat it), athletes, and some assorted biz owners who'd probably pay more in specialized Accounting services. Only 15,000 Americans are in that bracket.
But a high marginal rate is really the camel's nose in the tent. AOC will come up about 9.8 trillion dollars short on her green new deal, and of course the Dems would then argue that the threshold for higher taxes would need to be lowered, and suddenly we're all "wealthy". That's why I'd rather nip her and her awful suggestions in the bud.
Didn't France cancel their supertax in less than a year? They started losing revenues as they came face to face with the realities of capital flight.
Dear lord...
She practices what she preaches. A few years back as a waitress (excellent experience for politics fyi) she was well known as a tip thief from other waitresses.
Now that she was somehow elected into office, she'll continue stealing from the rich for her own pocket.
Think she's kinda hot tbh
NANCY PELOSI is hotter
SOTHILF amirite
I've been thinking about this recently, would be curious to see what some of the smarter economic minds think. what if we adopted the nordic model?
so you get free market principles with social safety nets, and it seems to work OK over there (although I'll admit I haven't done much more than a cursory analysis)
Esuric Alt-Ctr-Left
A more prominent welfare state funded by much higher taxes does have some nice benefits, but it will never work in the US because...
1) Different cultural mindset with far too many fractured tribes all competing. Nords are extremely homogeneous.
2)US is too populous, which ties in with point 1.
3) This idea is completely at odds with unsecured borders. This just leads to a ponzi scheme which will end with a civil war or something else as bad.
On the whole, their tax structure essentially pigeon-holes income to 'middle class', plus or minus a standard deviation. Aside from Denmark, their cap gains tax rates are much more favorable than the income tax rates, so I'm surprised that they don't suffer from the same issues like here in the US (i.e. Buffett shielding billions via cap gains). I also think that the fact that the Nordic countries are a much more homogeneous group plays a significant role. Lastly, it's much easier to control government waste with a smaller population- the population of Southern California is almost equal to all of the Nordic countries combined. Great question though, certainly preferable to the typical political banter that goes on, interested in other thoughts/ ideas.
I'll bite. I'm far from a great mind and not smarter than the average bear.
High taxes. Savvy organizations will figure out a way to operate in the US while remaining chartered in some tax friendly region. We already have had a ton of this. If this no longer works, one will see a large increase in maquiladoras. This explanation could be moot if tangible evidence existed that pork barrel spending was no longer an issue (unlikely).
Lower regulation. One would see a greater number of average Joes striking out on their own as sole proprietors and/or partnerships and LLCs. Regulation is pretty low in the US making it rather easy for someone to hang up a shingle and start an advisory practice, plumbing, or a kids clothing boutique. See the first point if said average Joe begins killing it in said venture.
Freer markets. This one I don't know. I always thought crony capitalism was a political buzzword tossed around during elections. If I'm missing the boat here, enlighten me.
Ok now we're getting somewhere. Let's at least have an honest debate about the Nordic model, rather than scaremonger everyone with Venezuela anytime an economic policy left-of-center is proposed.
I don't disagree that there are some major demographic differences between Scandinavia and the U.S. that more easily allows them to buy into the collective "team" approach. Yet, I don't understand why the model needs to be completely dismissed here. Why let perfect be the enemy of good? I worry that the well-established billionaire/donor class that is engrained in this country's political system will never let it happen though.
And once again, I'll pose this question in good faith to those who continue to throw MS at me. What is the solution on the right for an economy that isn't working for tens of millions of Americans? More tariffs? Do you think we can continue on the current path of winner-take-all unbridled capitalism causing massive income inequality?
I think the fact that we don't have unbridled capitalism is the heart of the issue. When you have crony-capitalism, it's easy for pundits to point to capitalism as the culprit, mainly because your average American won't extrapolate the root cause. Take a look at the price of housing on the West Coast, if you were an aloof individual and you fired up Google or turned on the TV, you'd think that price was the issue. However, in reality, it's the absurd zoning laws that's limiting the supply of housing. There's a pretty clear correlation between government involvement and price increases, see the student debt situation.
As another example, Amazon setting their minimum wage to $15 isn't about caring for the individual, it's purely an attempt to increase labor costs for other companies because they can afford it and the competition most likely cannot.
As for some solutions, to help the tens of millions in 'poverty', I'd remove the tax discrepancy between cap gains and ordinary income. To take it a step further, simplifying the tax code would certainly help.
The reasoning for the single-quote on poverty is because it's relative. While I'm not even going to pretend to understand the plight of poverty in America, there is no denying that the standard of living for all parties has steadily increased. It's human nature to be comparative, which is why the hedonic treadmill and keeping up with the Joneses are omnipresent.
To your point on how long we can continue on this current path- I'm not sure, but even the most impoverished in the US are among the 5% of the world's richest (would it really be worth toppling the .01%?). I agree with your sentiment on the elite/ donor class having a large impact on legislation, but, rarely if ever has more government intervention benefited the poor for an extended period of time.
I think you are leaving out: -strong unions (that means more regulation, especially compared to the US) -capital controls
Pmc2ghy is also spot on about the difference in terms of population size and social cohesion. I recommend reading David Goodhart on the diversity vs solidarity conundrum for the left, and why it's unlikely to ever see the Nordic model working in the US.
Laborum sequi accusantium cupiditate architecto aspernatur aspernatur. Aut veritatis soluta quo.
Ut pariatur quia vitae distinctio fugiat sapiente pariatur. Qui natus ducimus est eos enim perferendis doloribus.
Autem nihil aperiam aperiam est aut distinctio dolore non. Est minus sit modi eligendi. Dolorem provident possimus impedit qui autem velit mollitia. Quo et voluptatum possimus aperiam optio maxime tempora. Itaque doloremque saepe qui a molestiae magni.
Tempore ut ut sed iusto corporis libero et. Ad quia reiciendis id mollitia qui sit qui. Sed mollitia nesciunt commodi repellat inventore delectus quia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Repellendus non provident molestias officiis. Minima autem officiis voluptatum asperiores maxime impedit. Quaerat dolorem mollitia officia deleniti voluptatem cupiditate tempore omnis. Dolore mollitia architecto dolor quae aut est. Aut et et veritatis magni. Nihil eius rem ut.
Numquam nulla et quia molestias. Et ipsa sed voluptatum commodi.