- He simply calls this 70% tax rate a “terrible idea.”
- He feels that this plan would result in “a significant drop in economic activity.”
- Under 30 years old.
- Whose previously life and work experience involves bartending.
- Who does not even know the definition of the unemployment rate despite having an economic degrees.
- Who grossly misunderstood a Pentagon audit report, thinking that she had miraculously found $26 TRILLION in Pentagon waste.
- Who does not even know what the three branches of the U.S. government are.
- As a trained statistician I find such ignorance of numbers and the reality they reflect to be repulsive. So let’s look at the numbers and compare her 70% income tax rate for high earners to her “Medicare For All” plan, a plan that is estimated to cost $32.6 TRILLION over the first ten years, or about $3.26 TRILLION a year:
- We will use official, real IRS income tax numbers from the year 2016, the last year with full national tax totals that are available.
- In that year Americans filed 150,272,157 tax returns.
- Only 16,087 taxpayers earned over $10 million that year, the taxpayers that Ocasio-Cortez wants to gouge to fund two massive Federal government programs.
- 16,087 taxpayers represent .1% of all taxpayers, again showing the insanity of her plan, expecting .1% of all taxpayers to shoulder the load for her programs.
- The adjusted gross income of this .1% of all taxpayers was $482 billion in 2016, accounting for only 4.7% of the adjusted gross income of ALL American taxpayers.
- Again, see the idiocy of expecting 4.7% of all income to pay for these programs?
- According to the IRS, the average gross adjusted income of this .1% is $29,966,272.
- If you taxed their entire income at 70% you would get about $337 billion.
- This would cover about only about 10% of the annual Medicare for All cost of $3.26 TRILLION.
- But she wants to tax only the amount over $10 million at 70% which brings down the number to about $224 billion, about only 7% of the annual incremental cost of “Medicare for All’s” $3.26 TRILLION.
- But hold on, that amount over $10 million is already taxed at 37% so the incremental amount that would be collected is only 33% of the income over $10 million, 70% mins 37%.
- This gets the incremental total down to $105 billion which is only 3.2% of the annual $3.26 TRILLION that “Medicare for All” would require.
- Thus, her taxation plan would leave her 96.8% short of the amount needed to fund one year of the “Medicare For All” costs or about $3.1 TRILLION short.
- And it is doubtful she would get this much since the cross elasticity of income and taxes would cause some people to curtail their earning power since why work harder just to give the government 70% of that incremental effort and earning, or as often happens when you raise taxes a ridiculous amount the “more you tax the less you get.”
- According to Warner Todd Huston, writing for the Godfather Politics website on January 8, 2019, New Jersey, Democrats in the state legislature are working on legislation to give animals human-like rights in courts of law.
- State assemblywoman Annette Quijano has written legislation that “would give pets a human advocate/lawyer in court cases of abuse and other cases.”
- Yes, Fluffy would be able to retain a lawyer legally in the state.
- John De Cando chief animal officer for the city of Paterson is quoted as saying: “Dogs need representation. They need people to come forward on their behalf. They can’t speak. It would be nice to have someone pro bono come forward and represent an animal that can’t speak for themselves.”
- “Dogs need representation” but cats, snakes, ferrets, do not, where does it end?
- Rather than fix current laws to correctly punish animal abusers, we want to give dogs a whole new level of status in this country.
- And New Jersey is not alone, apparently Connecticut already has a doggie lawyer bill on the books.
- New York state politician Linda B. Rosenthal is putting together a doggie lawyer bill for New York state also: “From divorce to abuse cases, animals are involved in all manner of court proceedings. These advocates will help to decrease the likelihood that animals end up in cruel situations, and I look forward to working to see it become law.”
- Fix this problem the right way, amend the existing laws to properly punish animal abusers, make it easier to punish them and eliminate any loopholes that allow them to get off without appropriate punishment.
- I doubt that providing lawyers to dogs would rank very high on the list of priorities of residents in these states, given the need for better schools, better roads, help to the hungry and homeless and drug addicted, and a myriad of other societal problems that are far more important than doggie lawyers.
- And finally, I find it personally repugnant that liberal politicians are more than ready to give lawyer and legal rights to dogs but not to unborn souls in the womb, actually human beings who I personally think would deserve legal representation before Fido.
It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.
Please visit the following sites for freedom: