AOC FTW

[CousinIT]

Link to tweet

Billionaires need the working class.

The working class does not need billionaires.

[handmade34]

1. recommend +1,000,000,000

we just need to convince the rest of the working class...

[Hortensis]

146. [b]"We can have democracy in this country, OR we can have

great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

Nancy Pelosi to the nation on opening the 116th congress.

Thought you'd really like this one also.

[CrispyQ]

2. It was consumers & essential workers, not the "job creators,"

who drove the economy during the shut-down. Yet our $1,200 payment is called socialism, but the forgivable loans to corporations/churches/& the 1% are just good business.

[RestoreAmerica2020]

10. Love this..sending to my son who works in medical field. Thanks!

Paz

[CrispyQ]

11. Tell him we are all so thankful for what he & his colleagues do!

May they be safe.

[NotANeocon]

19. Missed an essential one

No garbage collectors - imagine any city without them. Your body systems go on strike the one needed most is the excretory system.

[FoxNewsSucks]

3. The truth is that simple.

[cayugafalls]

4. Now if we can just get the entire working class to unite and fight we might win.

I am afraid that by the time we meet at the Barricades it will be too late.

[PatrickforO]

5. Billionaires are parasites. Every billionaire is a failure in policy.

Part of building back better will necessarily involve raising taxes on billionaires and corporations back to 1970s rates. And the tax code needs to be confiscatory after $1 billion in wealth. We do not need billionaires. At all.

[JoeOtterbein]

6. We can't afford billionaires...

...they want too much for do nothing.

[panader0]

7. A famous quote by Abraham Lincoln:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor,
and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior
of capital, and deserving much the higher consideration.

[EarnestPutz]

41. Great quote from Lincoln. It's been my signature line here on DU fro a while. Don't remember...

....who I borrowed it from. Lincoln was ahead of his time in many ways.

[Trailrider1951]

93. Thanks! I once quoted that to a conservative republican and I asked him

who he thought said it. His answer was Karl Marx. I swear, I think that they thrive on ignorance.

[Ohio Joe]

8. K&R -nt

[Solly Mack]

9. K&R

[Ohioboy]

12. The proof that billionaires need workers is simple

Billionaires would do without workers if they didn't need them. It's as simple as that. A corporation's first priority is to not pay, or if they must pay, pay as little as possible and still get the work done. They would literally use slaves if it was legal.

[mrsadm]

60. They would use slaves,

Or children, if it were legal.

[LiberalLovinLug]

13. Right on!

I wish more Democrats weren't afraid to say this.

[melman]

16. lol

[lunatica]

18. The upper management don't have to be billionaires

in order for everything to run smoothly.

There is no symbiosis between billionaires and the people who do the work to keep anything running smoothly. Billionaires are dispensable.

[SpaceNeedle]

42. Upper management doesn't have money to risk ventures and expansions

Please go check and see how much a new factory for a widget would cost and what the working capital needs would be.

They run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

[lunatica]

47. You go check

Billionaires are bloodsuckers who think that a dollar in a workers pocket is supposed to be theirs. And they have the power to make it so.

Entrepreneurs create jobs and they can do it without being billionaires.

I have nothing against people being rich. But when people have to scrape and sacrifice because the rich are too cheap to be grateful that they made their wealth off the work of those people then they’re creating poverty.

[SpaceNeedle]

48. In my experience when people become billionaires

they also make a lot of people who were with them from the getgo billionaires or millionaires as well.

Google is your friend. Check "Microsoft millionaires", "Facebook millionaires", "Amazon millionaires" and "Google millionaires"

Thousands of ordinary people are now worth between 5 and 1,700 million dollars.

This is why people take jobs at startups (funded by money from billionaires) so that they would become millionaires one day too.

[jaxexpat]

75. So, is the organizational business model of banks ordained by god?

I didn't realize.

[theaocp]

22. There is no excuse for billionaires. None.

They exist due to exploitation and need to be ended. Oddly enough, they'll still be richer than fuck, so it's a win-win.

[Bettie]

62. Right, so many of them were

only millionaires and "struggled" to get their billions.

Poor babies.

[ehrnst]

135. Sweden, Norway and Iceland have survived and done well despite

having more billionaires per capita than the U.S.

https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/which-places-have-highest-concentration-billionaires

I just have to wonder if that isn't just something that's easier to point a finger at than getting into the very complex issues in economics, especially during an election year.

Just sayin.

[George II]

31. Exactly.

[tenderfoot]

59. LOL

[rwsanders]

65. If this were true we'd still be waiting for someone to develop fire and the wheel.

Labor is the only important factor. The first person who tried to organize fire makers into a corporation should have had their head smashed with a rock.

[reACTIONary]

96. Unfortunately, disorganized labor...

... is relatively unproductive, compared to organized effort. And as social animals, we have always organized and coordinated our efforts... that is the only way social animals can survive, let alone prosper.

Productive social organization implies some form of leadership. The provision of leadership is a very valuable, in fact essential, capability. And like all other capabilities, specialization in leadership makes for more effective leaders, and thus more effective and productive economic organization.

I think there is a general, maybe intuitive, understanding that this is true, which is why there is a general, maybe intuitive, tolerance or even respect for elites, that always works to undermine the arguments for working class solidarity against the plutocracy.

[rwsanders]

110. I think there can be leadership without a group of "leaders" who do no work and contribute nothing.

When I was in the USCG about half of the officers were actually a hinderance, while about 95% of the Chief Petty Officers were the drivers that made things work. Small independent units work best from my observations. Centralized control as in a large corporation is detrimental to productivity.

[reACTIONary]

137. I think that economics of scale, while...

... not without limits, is more or less proven to be important to productivity. That's not to say that smaller organizations aren't more effective in some areas of endeavor and under some circumstances.

[rwsanders]

145. The problem there is that once you reach a certain point, the organization then becomes a monster

that is more important than the mission.
I think loss of efficiency is more than worth it at that point.

[reACTIONary]

154. Efficiency does not trump justice...

... but mere size is not injustice. Nor does it necessitate injustice. I think there is much more concern over big-this and big-that than is warranted, and not enough understanding of the benefits.

[rwsanders]

156. Sorry, been there done that. Haven't seen any benefit of size other than to concentrate wealth

and power in the hands of the few. Not the vision our nation was founded on. Nice hypotheticals, but ignores the reality of greed. As the cliché goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". More power = more corruption.

[reACTIONary]

157. Time will tell...

... if it hasn't already.

[treestar]

76. They wouldn't have any $$ to invest

had they not sold something in order to make the money.

[reACTIONary]

94. Agree. nt

[melman]

15. She's the best

[SpaceNeedle]

44. lol

"lol" is the key word.

[melman]

52. Yawn

[lunatica]

17. I've made that argument all my life.

No higher echelon people in any organization, whether it’s in Universities, government, military services or business would be able to do anything at all if they didn’t have staff. They ought to recognize that and pay better wages.

Imagine if Trump had to answer all the phone calls, or type letters, or write all the documents coming out of the White House, or open all the mail or just create meeting calendars.

Same goes for professors, university departments, CEOs, doctors and anything that can’t run unless the staff do the work.

[NurseJackie]

20. Oh dear! This sounds awful! If true, what is the solution?

Are we supposed to find a way to outlaw millionaires and billionaires? How does the United States benefit by outlawing millionaires and billionaires and multi-million/billion dollar corporations? Surely we're not supposed to kill them, right? So, do we set limits on how much wealth a person (or corporation) can be worth? Who gets to decide? What happens when they've reached their "limit"? Should they be taxed 100% for every dollar over whatever amount has been deemed to be "too much" wealth? How would that work?

[rwsanders]

21. All of the above. Look to history. FDR had it right. Second Bill of Rights, 90% marginal tax rate

Make corporations serve the common good. This is still the best article I have found on what corporations were supposed to be:
https://vault.sierraclub.org/sierra/200509/corporation.asp
How do we benefit?
Medically: marketing companies don't get to decide where research dollars go.
Scientifically: NASA back in command of space missions, rather than a couple of ego driven eccentric billionaires
Environmentally: We all carry a huge load of persistent organic pollutants in or bodies, there are better ways. All it would take is moving some of our workforce back into agriculture (currently it is 2%, prior to WW2 it was somewhere over 90%), although it is science fiction the Star Trek the Next Generation episode "The Devil's Due" is a good road map, or the Ray Bradbury short story "The Toynbee Convector".
Socially: Europe enjoys more vacation and more family time. Our mean culture is probably partly due to lack of connections. Research as shown that most adults have 2 our less people they are close to. Also, the wealthy won't be pitting us against each other, a trick they learned from colonial powers. How else do you think that a few whites were able to rule over a bunch of poor natives.
Financially: More money in the middle class means more in the economy. It has been shown that a dollar given to the poor returns dollars in the economy. A tax break to the top 1%, not so much.
Morally: Shut down wars of choice and exploitation of workers in developing nations.
Evolutionarily: If we can avoid the worst of the results of global warming, we might survive as a species and if we work REALLY hard we might be able to enjoy our planet with more creatures than just the odd cockroach or two (see the movie "WALL-E&quot .

One idea is that if they won't accept their proper tax burden, give them what they want. They want to be royalty, so give them a tin crown, a small plot in Europe and a cheesy title and be rid of them.

[SpaceNeedle]

45. FDR's economy was all based upon WWII spending

which lingered till the late 50's.

Then JFK reduced the marginal tax rates and economy boomed in the 60's only to be wrecked by Nixon.

[rwsanders]

64. Not an area of history I'm familiar with, but I doubt that the booming economy was

the result of the reduction in tax rates. That hasn't caused any boom in recent history, just an offshoring of capital to the tune of $20 trillion.
I would say it was the fruit of FDR's investment.

But I still say that we have 2 choices right now, support a billionaire class or have a decent society.

[ehrnst]

132. Sweden has a higher Billionaire per capita rate than the US.

And many on the far left hold them up as a beacon of economic light.

Not a fan of billionaire, but perhaps the root cause lies elsewhere?

I think that we can be more effective in solving problems finding the real issue than latching onto political slogans.

After all, isn't that what the GOP does with "socialism" as the root cause of all evil?

[rwsanders]

136. I don't think it is just a slogan, and maybe billionaires aren't the entire problem, maybe

the system that allows it is on part of the problem. But here in the US we have a toxic combination of billionaires and a system of government lusting after campaign cash.
So I'd still maintain they are a big part of the problem. So much so that I'd say let's try it without them and see what happens. Of course they'd probably try to treat us like Haiti.

[ehrnst]

138. So why do you think that they are more prevalent in Sweden and Iceland

and yet those economies are held up as something to strive for by the same particular politicians who also point to the existence of billionaires as the root of our economic problems?

Especially in election years....

[rwsanders]

147. Maybe because their societies haven't left people to live on the streets,

children without food, an inequitable education system, stagnant wages, lack of healthcare, a population living as serfs with no vacation time, etc. Maybe they have fair elections and a social system that isn't geared toward control and incarceration. I guess we just got stuck with the stupid billionaires.
But they don't need that much money and society doesn't need them. I don't really care who holds those countries up as an ideal, it wasn't me. I'm looking at where we are in the U.S. and how they are screwing things up. If those countries want to tolerate their stench, let them. But they aren't needed here. That's why I say give them what they want, they want to be royalty, so give them a cheap crown, a small plot in Europe and a cheesy title and let them strut around trying to impress each other.

[ehrnst]

149. How do you propose to eliminate them? (nt)

[rwsanders]

152. I'm not an economist, but FDR is a great model...

No more tax breaks or subsidies for billion dollar corporations, especially those in the extraction industries.
90% marginal tax rate.
Tax on Wall St. transactions.
Restrictions on off-shoring wealth (personally I'd rather see a seizure of assets, but court battles would be more expensive).
Restrictions on "foreign" businesses (relocated to avoid taxes) doing business in the U.S.
Return of Glass-Steagal regulations.

FDR's second Bill or Rights amended to the Constitution along with incorporating privacy and voting as rights. Take away corporate "personhood" and legally define speech as speech not money, recognize the Declaration of Independence as a legal document (it has but has been ignored by the courts).

Really simple stuff. If they don't like it, hopefully they'll leave.

[ehrnst]

153. "Really simple stuff."

If these things are so simple, why haven't they been accomplished already?

FDR was a multimillionaire.

Are millionaires also expendable? Senator Sanders once stated that it was immoral to be in the Senate while being a millioniare. Now he is one, and still ran in 2016 for re-election.

It might be harder than we imagine for even the most lefty politicians to stick to their absolutes once they've become millionaires.

[ehrnst]

158. Strawman. When you have no real rebuttal.

But I'll bite. What did I defend?

Perhaps anyone who disagrees with you on anything is "indefensible?" And aligns with Ayn Rand? I guess that's easier than responding to a difficult question you hadn't thought about.

It is simple concepts, difficult to pass like any progressive initiative because the system is rigged for the wealthy and the politicians on both sides are bought and paid for.

So what you're actually saying is that this "simple solution" doesn't actually work when applied to real life, because the solution would require political will, and there isn't the political will right now. That's much clearer.

Well Sanders is once and all a politician, and he is as close as we are going to get to someone who will represent the people..

So, there are no Democrats representing the people?

No one can criticize the wealthy unless they are poor?

Are you confusing this thread with another, or me with another person who said this? Or just lining up strawmen to attack?

You'd like to hound him out like everyone did to Franken, and leave us with a bunch of oligarchs. No Thanks

Another strawman. Did you find a sale on them? I didn't hound out Franken, nor am I in favor of "hounding out" Sanders. If you need to create a strawman to attack in order to justify your position, don't expect others to defend it.

[ehrnst]

159. Going after me by DM? Seriously? "Twit?"

Last edited Tue Aug 11, 2020, 05:19 PM - Edit history (2)

You know, it looks as though you signed it "MORON."

[NurseJackie]

163. Also ... "your".

Lordy.

[Cha]

164. Wow.. smh. Who Does THAT?!!

[Me.]

165. THat Should Be You're

[manhattan123]

25. Where exactly in that tweet did she say they should be outlawed?

[NurseJackie]

26. Where did I say that she had?

[manhattan123]

28. So your solution is to outlaw them?

You spoke of outlawing them. I asked what that has to do with her tweet?

[NurseJackie]

30. Ridiculous. That's a question, not a quote.

[manhattan123]

32. But she didn't call for anything to be done to billionaires, just pointed out an indisputable fact

Why, it's almost like you have an irrational dislike of AOC? lol

[NurseJackie]

37. Where are the solutions? Anyone can post a laundry list of problems...

... without offering realistic and sensible solutions. Don't we deserve that much? It's easy to point to those things we think are the problems. It's much harder to come up with real world solutions.

PS... "Irrational???" Oh brother. I haven't tried to insult you. Why do you believe that you're entitled to insult me? I don't deserve that.

[manhattan123]

63. Irrational is an insult?

Oh, sister. What was I thinking/

[NurseJackie]

77. Please don't play innocent with me.

Last edited Sun Aug 9, 2020, 08:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Irrational is an insult?

Please don't play innocent with me. We both know perfectly well what an ad hominem attack is. In addition to being a smear against another person, it's also a clear indication that the one making the personal attack is aware that with, regard to the discussion, they are in a position of weakness.

Ad hominem ... is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Oh, sister. What was I thinking/

Who knows what you were thinking? I'm not a mind-reader. Someone else's guess is a good as any, I suppose. But I can tell you that I'm not buying the "who me-e-e?" act.

[George II]

81. I'm having a hard time deciding which is the key word - "irrational" or "insult".

[NurseJackie]

84. I don't know. But here's a gif...

I don't know. But here's a gif animation of a startled giraffe that I find to be amusing.


He's probably thinking thinking: "Oh no! I've been spotted! Run-away! Run-away!"

Spotted... get it?

[George II]

85. Aha! First thing that comes to mind is "connect the dots"!

[NurseJackie]

86. This one is wearing a disguise...

He's thinking: "If I wear this big hat, then nobody will recognize me."

[George II]

88. Back when I lived in Manhattan I used to walk past this hotel a couple of times a week:

[NurseJackie]

90. That's a very unique name.

This giraffe has a funny expression... it looks like he wants to run away and HIDE, HIDE, HIDE, HIDE.

[ehrnst]

151. If someone was to call your ideas for change 'irrational' you'd

say "thank you," I assume.

[George II]

29. Back in January she said billionaires shouldn't exist.

[manhattan123]

33. I don't know what she said in January, I don't fixate on her as some around here seem to.

I simply asked what the concept of outlawing billionaires had to do with her tweet.

[George II]

34. And the answer is that she doesn't believe billionaires exist. Don't know what she intends to do....

....about it.

This is a political site, most here "fixate" on politicians and what they say. What's the problem with that?

[manhattan123]

36. She doesn't believe billionaires exist?

Um, okay?

Fixating on one particular freshman congresswoman seems a bit obsessive, but you do you.

[George II]

38. Typo - she doesn't believe billionaires SHOULD exist (as I said in the previous post)....

...#29.

So discussing one congresswoman along with discussing dozens of others over a period of time is "fixating" and "obsessive"?

[manhattan123]

39. Oh, you thought I was talking about you?

[George II]

40. First clue was "you do you". Whatever, have at it.

Last edited Sat Aug 8, 2020, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

To sum up, she thinks billionaires shouldn't exist. That's the bottom line.

I don't know what her remedy to that is, though.

PS - what's the key word?

[manhattan123]

61. Well, I was talking to your bud NurseJackie, but okay...

We get it. AOC, boooo!

[betsuni]

78. You said "You do you" and then "Oh, you thought I was talking about you?"

then "I was talking to your bud NurseJackie." You, you, your, NurseJackie, but it's not about her.

[NurseJackie]

79. I know, right?

[betsuni]

91. Heh. Interesting.

[ehrnst]

139. Snap!

[George II]

80. Suggestion - respond to the person to whom you're talking.

[NurseJackie]

27. Bazinga!

[SpaceNeedle]

46. but... but.. they are good billionaires .. they are allowed to exist

for playing by the squad rules.

[tenderfoot]

58. ...

[betsuni]

49. Just call it "grassroots," then it's okay.

[sheshe2]

51. wait for it

[paleotn]

97. Is she voting in their best interests?

Do you have examples? Simple question.

Why a simple statement that's factually true leads to such angst, I'll never know. Without his worker bees, Amazon would grind to a halt and Jeff's equity stake in his company would become worthless. With a little seed money, a website and some storage space, I can replicate Amazon's beginnings. Hell, just drop ship everything from the manufacturer and I don't even need storage. Thus, Jeff Bezos needs us far more than we need him.

[George II]

99. We don't know. But we do know she's voted against the Democratic majority....

What we also do know is that her campaign has accepted billionaire money AND about 97% of her itemized contributions came from outside the 14th District.

So, with respect to the citizens in the 14th District, one can ask the question in your subject line.

[paleotn]

101. Well, if she's a tool for the uber rich...

They need to get a refund. She ain't working.

[melman]

104. "one can ask the question in your subject line"

[japple]

24. And that is exactly why slavery exists.

[Celerity]

35. K & R

[SoonerPride]

53. Did she say that?

Tax the Fuck out of them.

[melman]

55. plutophobia!

[Celerity]

57. plutophobia is a another RW talking point on edit (as the post was hidden) the poster I am

Last edited Sun Aug 9, 2020, 04:06 AM - Edit history (2)

replying to here (melman) was NOT the one who used the term plutophobia, it was used in the now hidden post.

[betsuni]

66. How is it a right-wing talking point? Too many syllables for the modern American right-winger.

[Celerity]

67. Defence of a plutocracy is a priori RW, and also, by its very nature, anti-democracy.

They were also trying to smear liberals (liberals in the US sense of the word) via a falsely-framed label, which is another RW tactic.

So it was 2-for-1.

Plus they posted pure tosh from an basic economic standpoint, saying that billionaires were necessary for capital formation, which is just ridiculous on it's face.

[betsuni]

68. There wasn't any defense of plutocracy.

[Celerity]

69. Yes it was, most definitely so, for the reasons I already laid out, including my reply in regards

to the ludicrous claim that billionaires are needed for capital formation.

done, here

not going to flog a dead horse

[betsuni]

70. The point of America is that it's a Disney Land capitalist casino. You can visit wearing

Last edited Sun Aug 9, 2020, 04:54 AM - Edit history (1)

shorts and flip-flops and try your luck. It has always been capitalist and always will be. Not a plutocracy yet, Russia is. Republicans are to blame for the horrible inequality. Not all rich people are the enemy. Elect more Democrats and there won't be a problem, it's the party of regulation. Public figures who claim that Democrats are corrupt and paid by the "donor class" (plutocracy) should be ashamed of themselves. Republicans are the party of unregulated capitalism. The problem is that too many Americans think both sides are the same and don't vote, or vote for Republicans because of ridiculous wedge issues and not policy.

[Celerity]

71. you are projecting far more into this than what the post I replied to said, and also what I said

If I call someone homophobic, it means they are against us LGBTQ folk. I am defending us because to slander, hate, attack, and deprive us of our rights simply because of our sexual and gender orientation is wrong.

The poster used the word plutophobia in the same manner, ie. where they are saying that to attack plutocrats and plutocracy is somehow wrong. Plutocratic government, by its very nature, is anti-democratic and a horrid way to organise a nation-state and its resultant society. They also posited that billionaires were some essential to a well functioning capital formation system, which is utter bollocks. Extreme wealth concentration actually hinders efficiency and aids is creating that rigged casino you just spoke of. The same is true of the systemic manifestations of capitalism itself, far beyond the equity markets. Crony capitalism is the bane of fully functioning market(s). Regulatory capture and corporate socialism (wherein profits are always kept private, but losses are to a huge degree, socialised) are yet other negative outcomes from this.

A plutocrat, by their very nature, wants as much inequality as possible, as they rule by wealth accumulation and its resultant systemic control that enabled by said wealth. Here in the Nordics, we have extremely vibrant (and also, not by accident, well regulated) capitalistic systems, that work hand in hand with a humane and very expansive social welfare system superstructure. Our wealth inequalities here in the Nordics amongst the top in the world as well. Here in Sweden, we also have (you may well be shocked at this) more billionaires per capita than the US does. The huge difference is that they are mostly blocked (as best we can) from plutocratic control. We do not have perfect systems at all, but both our capital sectors and our social welfare sectors are far more vibrant than the US has. We have vastly more upward social mobility. The only major advanced western nation that has LESS upward social mobility than the US is my other country of citizenship, that being the UK.

The number one, BY FAR, over-arching, interlocked determinant of the overall health and welfare (at all levels) of a society and a nation-state is wealth distribution inside that society. The more unequal the distribution becomes, the more socio-economic, socio-cultural, socio-political, and physical/mental wellness deleterious issues that society incurs. The total level of wealth for the most part, is far less important thanhow it is distributed.

The US is extraordinarily unequal now in terms of wealth equality. The last time I checked, a few years ago, the US was 137th on the list (136 was Iran, for comparison sake). The top 1 and half (Bezos + just half of Bill Gates' wealth) wealthiest people (now up to $250 billion) control more wealth than the bottom 50% (165 million people) of Americans. The US hurtling towards a plutocracy. The extreme concentration of wealth in a few is having very negative effect on the nation when looked at in a holistic manner. Look at the impunity that Zuckerberg operates with, and he is but one example of a myriad number of wealth-related systemic power projections that effect everyone in the US, be it via governmental polices, regulations (or lack thereof) and laws, or indirect and direct private sector control apparatuses.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/people/57553/top-billionaires-who-richest-person-world



here is the 2017 chart

https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/#5eebe8423cf8




more historic charts (from 2016)

https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/










here is a great video on wealth inequality from 2011


How economic inequality harms societies | Richard Wilkinson

[betsuni]

72. ...

[Celerity]

56. you do not need billionaires to have effective capital formation, that is a RW talking point

The Billionaires Are Getting Nervous

Bill Gates and others warn that higher taxes would lead to lower growth. They have their facts backward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/sunday/bill-gates-warren-tax.html

By The Editorial Board

When Bill Gates founded Microsoft in 1975, the top marginal tax rate on personal income was 70 percent, tax rates on capital gains and corporate income were significantly higher than at present, and the estate tax was a much more formidable levy. None of that dissuaded Mr. Gates from pouring himself into his business, nor discouraged his investors from pouring in their money.

Yet he is now the latest affluent American to warn that Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan for much higher taxes on the rich would be bad not just for the wealthy but for the rest of America, too.

Mr. Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, suggested on Wednesday that a big tax increase would result in less economic growth. “I do think if you tax too much you do risk the capital formation, innovation, U.S. as the desirable place to do innovative companies — I do think you risk that,” he said.

Other perturbed plutocrats have made the same point with less finesse. The billionaire investor Leon Cooperman was downright crude when he declared that Ms. Warren was wrecking the American dream. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, complained on CNBC that Ms. Warren “uses some pretty harsh words” about the rich. He added, “Some would say vilifies successful people.”

Let’s get a few things straight.

The wealthiest Americans are paying a much smaller share of income in taxes than they did a half-century ago. In 1961, Americans with the highest incomes paid an average of 51.5 percent of that income in federal, state and local taxes. In 2011, Americans with the highest incomes paid just 33.2 percent of their income in taxes, according to a study by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman published last year. Data for the last few years is not yet available but would most likely show a relatively similar tax burden.

snip

[KPN]

54. Can't get any more graphically to the point

than that! This young lady is a great at communicating fundamental concepts not to mention quite inspiring regarding our future.

[Trumpocalypse]

73. I see

the usual AOC haters are out in force on this thread.

[Voltaire2]

74. Stunning shocking surprising

None of the above.

[George II]

83. "AOC haters"? That's rather divisive, isn't it? We can't discuss what politicians...

....do and what they say here on Democratic Underground?

[betsuni]

89. Oh, suddenly holding feet to the fire and constructive criticism is bad and "hating."

LOL. That's quite a change.

[Trumpocalypse]

92. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[NurseJackie]

95. Haaaaa!

[NurseJackie]

98. LOL! Every time I read that quote...

Every time I read that quote (and especially when it's being used in an ad hominem way in order to deflect legitimate criticism of political hypocrisy) that's when I know that a very sensitive nerve has been struck.

[Trumpocalypse]

100. Yup it has

[NurseJackie]

102. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

107. Thanks for being honest

[NurseJackie]

108. No, thank YOU!

[Trumpocalypse]

109. You're too kind

[NurseJackie]

111. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

112. Yes we all know

[NurseJackie]

113. That's good!

[Trumpocalypse]

114. Yes it is

[NurseJackie]

115. It certainly is.

[Trumpocalypse]

116. Agreed

[NurseJackie]

117. Of course.

[Trumpocalypse]

118. Great

[NurseJackie]

119. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

120. Cool

[NurseJackie]

121. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

122. Glad you do

[NurseJackie]

123. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

124. Good

[NurseJackie]

125. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

126. Everyone knows

[NurseJackie]

127. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

128. Sure you do

[NurseJackie]

129. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

130. Good

[NurseJackie]

131. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

133. Good

[NurseJackie]

134. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

140. Good

[NurseJackie]

141. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

142. Good

[NurseJackie]

143. I know.

[Trumpocalypse]

144. Good

[Cuthbert Allgood]

160. That quotation from Hamlet doesn't mean what you think it means.

I mean, it's not just you, but "protest" had a different meaning.

That's my TED Talk for the day.

[Trumpocalypse]

161. LOL

Who knew??

[Cuthbert Allgood]

162. From my experience, not even all English teachers.

When my wife and I are watching TV and someone uses that, I sigh and she just rolls her eyes at me. That and "wherefore art thou." And "I took the road less traveled" kills me (though Orange is the New Black covered that in like their first episode). And "Romeo and Juliet is a love story."

Anyway, fight the good fight!

[Bluethroughu]

82. Another bigger better longer General Strike for Labor Day!

Back in the day, people marched together for a better life. We can stay the F*ck at home, for a week or two or more.

They (Republicans) are burning down our country because the Billionaires don't have enough. Well, we have eachother and it's way more than them!

How did wealth save the French aristocracy, oh that's right...
IT DIDN'T.

We have more...POWER!
MORE FISTS, MORE PEOPLE, MORE POWER!

It is time for a General Strike starting Labor day!

[fescuerescue]

87. The world would be far better off without Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Tesla, SpaceX

and all the other billionaire owned companies.

We should take a very close look at the 604 billionaires in the US.

[Upthevibe]

103. Kick....n/t

[dchill]

105. Power to the people!

A working class hero is something to be.

[argyl]

106. The term billionaire needs to become an anachronism.

No one has worked hard enough for that kind of money. They haven't earned it and they certainly don't deserve it.

I'm no communist but I think private wealth should be limited to 200/250 million max. The rest should be used for programs that have done without adequate funding for decades. And no more multi trillion bailouts!

And if that doesn't sit well with our new monied aristocracy they can take a pistol and blow their heads off. They won't be missed.

[demmiblue]

148. 62 out of 147...

gotta love the ignore feature!

[Alex4Martinez]

150. AOC! K/R (nt)