Jeff Dunetz has a post over at The Lid about ¡Ocasio! She Guevara’s “tax fairness” proposal. He quotes her as 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 let’s say from zero to $75,000 may be 10 percent or 15 percent, etc. But once you get to the tippy-tops on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent …
Uh, wrong! The 70 precent top rate on incomes above $100,000 was a holdover from the ’40 and ’50s. One of the key accomplishments of the Kennedy Administration in the ’60 was to get the top rate lowered to 50 percent as a means of stimulating economic growth. Even corrected for inflation, her imagined threshold income for the top rate is an order of magnitude higher than the ’50s value. She’s set her definition of rich too high.
In any event, her numbers don’t add up with the current distribution of incomes. Jeff includes the following table—The top marginal rate is now about 40 percent. If doubling the rate didn’t result in the rich moving more of their their assets offshore and the taxman could take twice as much money from them, one could expect about a 20 percent increase in revenue. Personal income taxes would increase 40, but personal income taxes are only about half of the government’s take. That would provide roughly 800 billion dollars a year, which would not quite offset the deficit expected before implementing She Guevara’s Green New Deal. In fact, doubling everyone’s taxes wouldn’t provide enough money to fund her schemes.
UPDATE—With her congressional pay, Ms. Occasional-Cortex will be entering the upper 5 percent of income earners. Perhaps this will provide her with the same sort of practical education experienced by other who have climbed the income ladder.
Sarah Hoyt has a long essay over at According to Hoyt very effectively demonstrating the stupidity of She Guevara’s proposed Green New Deal. Ms. Hoyt does this in a most unfair manner by using Real World data and numbers and math. For example, consider the cost of green energy upgrades to “every” residential and commercial building.
That estimate— which, frankly, for a full remodel of an average 2,500 square foot home to state-of-the-art anything is still probably small— would put the cost of this project at 1.36 trillion dollars. Oh, plus another 336 billion dollars if we assume renovating commercial buildings costs only about 6 times as much, per building, as private homes. Or, for convenient reference, a bit more than the 1.688 trillion the government is expected to make in personal income taxes. Again, by fairly conservative estimates. This could be way higher.
Read the whole thing. I did, and in the process I also found couple of useful new terms to use in reference to the young congresscritter-elect: ¡Ocasio! and kindercaucus.
Compound interest is the most powerful force in the Universe.
—Anonymous (and definitely not Albert Einstein)
She Guevara (aka Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) was on CNN claiming that Medicare for all would be less expensive that our current healthcare because “incorporating the costs of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can’t afford access to health care. That is part of the cost of our system.”
Speaking from my family’s experience, the cost of a funeral is generally a bargain compared to the cost of a few months of medical expenses for an elderly person, and downright cheap compared to the cost of a few months of cancer.
When the retirement age for Social Security was set at 65 back in the ’30s, that was slightly longer than average life expectancy. Increasing life expectancy has broken that system. I had to wait until I was 66 to collect a full-size Social Security check. If the system were now rigged as it originally was, I should be waiting to collect until I’m almost 80.
Putting us old folks on Medicare increases costs. Burying us would save money. Putting everyone on Medicare … if you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait till it’s “free.”
Math is hard.