AOC believes a system that allows Billionaires to exist is immoral

[Arturo Belano]

She's 100% correct.

"muh job creators"

[Cold War Liberal]

Our country has a system where the President of the United States is ostensibly worth $3.1 billion dollars and yet there are dozens of homeless veterans sleeping on the streets two blocks from where he lives. If that's not the definition of a broken, immoral system, then I don't know what is.

However, to me that's not necessarily an argument for a Huey Long-esque maximum legal wealth and/or the overthrow of capitalism itself, it's an argument for much higher taxation of the rich, including making our income tax system a wealth tax, at least for the rich, and raising the capital gains tax, then using the new revenue to fund social programs to help the poor and working classes.

[Deleted User #4049]

I don't agree, but why are we surprised that a socialist has socialist viewpoints?

Also, Bezos is evil, and his company should be broken up.

[Xing]

It's certainly immoral if billionaires and people who work two jobs and can't support themselves simultaneously exist.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Wow, I support her even more!

[OSR stands with Israel]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

Actually, you make a good point. We shouldnt grant them incentives to keep expanding their companies. They practically are already monopolies on their respective industries, why give them a reason to expand? It would be economically wiser to intact AOC's plan, as that would mean companies have no reason to expand beyond a certain point, allowing other businesses to crop up and take up shelf space, instead of Amazon just buying everything else in the sector and having complete control over a sector of the econo

Lol do you know what the size of Amazon and Microsoft were when Bezos and Gates became Billionaires . Bill Gates became a billionaire in 1987 when Windows 2.0 came out and Bezos had become a billionaire in the late 90s . Amazon wasn’t even that big of influential in the late 90s.

So in your mind the world would be better if Microsoft couldn’t grow and innovative from where it was in 1987 or Amazon from the late 1990s lol

[OSR stands with Israel]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

Many would argue that companies the size of amazon or microsoft is a bad thing

This also shows she doesnt know what the difference between Cash and Net Worth is either .

Despite having had it explained to you numerous times, you appear not to understand why cash is a completely meaningless measure of wealth either

Yes now they are , but the size of Microsoft and Amazon weren’t that big when Gates and Bezos first became billionaires

[OSR stands with Israel]

The system that allows billionaires to exist is capitalism, however Cortez seems content with the economic system as it is, save for a few reforms. Sad to see that she's just focused on moralising as usual

Wealth inequality isn’t even the primary problem; it’s a side effect. The primary problem is the inequality inherent to the power distribution within capitalism; a system wherein the mass appropriation of labor power, and the “profit” derived from capitalists not paying laborers the full value of their labor (calculated as value upon point of sale). It’s mass theft reinforced through a system of coercive contractual employment (sell your labor or don’t feed yourself/family). So long as the capitalist/proletariat or employee/employer relationship exists, then so, too, will entrenched inequality, a lack of democratic power in a more immediate part of your daily life than government (your job), no control over what you produce (alienation), and countless people being accused of moral failure to excuse the systemic failures of capitalism to meet basic human needs.

Does your view of labor include marketers, administrators, accountants, and other support staff such as janitors and shipping? (In the latter case, the shipping may itself be a productnpirvjsed from elsewhere) Do all receive equal pieces of the pie? Do you believe the mandate to split profits equally with any additional staff would discourage certain entrepreneurial figures? How does intellectual property factor into this?

Are they performing work without being an owner of the means of production? Is the monetary value they receive in exchange for a product or service, rather than something idle, such as collecting rents on owned property, deriving profits from surplus value from labor, speculation/investment, or interest charges? Then they’re a laborer; they’re a proletariat.

It’s not about receiving equal slices of anything, if you’re going by “what would occur in your socioeconomic system.” You’re still approaching it from a mindset confined to a capitalist mode of production. The question is: is their a social need for it? Do we need housing, food, transportation, janitorial services, accounting work, etc...? If the answer is yes, then those services are required and should be provided. If there is a need, then it should be met. And, whomever meets that need, should retain total control over their labor and the product thereof. If that need requires social labor (such as what can be produced more efficiently by 2+ persons), then the contracted parties should have equal say in their work. All decisions pertaining to labor, production, etc... should be democratically decided by those involved.

Lol You truly don’t understand even basic economics do you

[Zaybay]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

Actually, you make a good point. We shouldnt grant them incentives to keep expanding their companies. They practically are already monopolies on their respective industries, why give them a reason to expand? It would be economically wiser to intact AOC's plan, as that would mean companies have no reason to expand beyond a certain point, allowing other businesses to crop up and take up shelf space, instead of Amazon just buying everything else in the sector and having complete control over a sector of the econo

Lol do you know what the size of Amazon and Microsoft were when Bezos and Gates became Billionaires . Bill Gates became a billionaire in 1987 when Windows 2.0 came out and Bezos had become a billionaire in the late 90s . Amazon wasn’t even that big of influential in the late 90s.

So in your mind the world would be better if Microsoft couldn’t grow and innovative from where it was in 1987 or Amazon from the late 1990s lol

There is a big difference between the innovation presented to us by these companies since 2000 and innovation presented by companies in the model I gave.

The innovation presented by Amazon and Microsoft is one both pointless and out of necessity. They have to make some kind of change, otherwise other companies may crop up and take up space. But the changes they make are minor, insignificant, etc.

 Apple is a good example of this. They are known as a company of innovation, and Jobs pushed for this aspect of the company to take center stage. The Ipod and Iphone were large leaps in the tech industry and daily life. Now, what has Apple done since then? They have been making minor tweaks to the phone, and thats really all.

Same with Windows, their operating systems, such as Window 10, have many known problems, but they have never truly innovated it besides a new coat of paint being applied.

Amazon has practically produced no innovations since its founding besides the idea of "free shipping".

Money is a strong motivator to change, but a larger motivator is competition. The Soviets and US made astronomical(no pun intended) leaps in progress when it came to rockets and space when faced with a competitor, and innovation works in a similar process. With how big Amazon/Microsoft/Google/etc. have become, who is there to challenge them? Why should they bother to change?

Its pretty simple, really. AOC is completely right on this, the existence of uber-rich billionaires that have created practical monopolies with their gigantic companies have created problems for the US.

[OSR stands with Israel]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

Actually, you make a good point. We shouldnt grant them incentives to keep expanding their companies. They practically are already monopolies on their respective industries, why give them a reason to expand? It would be economically wiser to intact AOC's plan, as that would mean companies have no reason to expand beyond a certain point, allowing other businesses to crop up and take up shelf space, instead of Amazon just buying everything else in the sector and having complete control over a sector of the econo

Lol do you know what the size of Amazon and Microsoft were when Bezos and Gates became Billionaires . Bill Gates became a billionaire in 1987 when Windows 2.0 came out and Bezos had become a billionaire in the late 90s . Amazon wasn’t even that big of influential in the late 90s.

So in your mind the world would be better if Microsoft couldn’t grow and innovative from where it was in 1987 or Amazon from the late 1990s lol

There is a big difference between the innovation presented to us by these companies since 2000 and innovation presented by companies in the model I gave.

The innovation presented by Amazon and Microsoft is one both pointless and out of necessity. They have to make some kind of change, otherwise other companies may crop up and take up space. But the changes they make are minor, insignificant, etc.

 Apple is a good example of this. They are known as a company of innovation, and Jobs pushed for this aspect of the company to take center stage. The Ipod and Iphone were large leaps in the tech industry and daily life. Now, what has Apple done since then? They have been making minor tweaks to the phone, and thats really all.

Same with Windows, their operating systems, such as Window 10, have many known problems, but they have never truly innovated it besides a new coat of paint being applied.

Amazon has practically produced no innovations since its founding besides the idea of "free shipping".

Money is a strong motivator to change, but a larger motivator is competition. The Soviets and US made astronomical(no pun intended) leaps in progress when it came to rockets and space when faced with a competitor, and innovation works in a similar process. With how big Amazon/Microsoft/Google/etc. have become, who is there to challenge them? Why should they bother to change?

Its pretty simple, really. AOC is completely right on this, the existence of uber-rich billionaires that have created practical monopolies with their gigantic companies have created problems for the US.

Ok here’s the thing can companies get to big yes I could argue Amazon May need to be broken up in the future but In 2000 they certainly weren’t . There was lots of competition to them in 2000 as well they were just better than the others and grew because of that .


Microsoft still had lots of competition in 1987 it wasn’t until later you could say they became a monopoly and during those years they made lots of innovations as well .

 

[OSR stands with Israel]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

I can't speak for Bezos, but I'm pretty confident Bill Gates wasn't thinking about his theoretical maximum net worth when he started Microsoft. He really is in it for the love of the game.

At the same time, if more billionaires spent their money like Bill Gates, they probably wouldn't get as much pushback from us pleebs.

Of course he wasn’t thinking about that but do you know capping how much Bill Gates could make would impact innovation and growth because your effectively saying Microsoft couldn’t have gotten bigger after the early 80s. So the only innovations they could have made after that were much much smaller than the ones he made

[OSR stands with Israel]

Our country has a system where the President of the United States is ostensibly worth $3.1 billion dollars and yet there are dozens of homeless veterans sleeping on the streets two blocks from where he lives. If that's not the definition of a broken, immoral system, then I don't know what is.

However, to me that's not necessarily an argument for a Huey Long-esque maximum legal wealth and/or the overthrow of capitalism itself, it's an argument for much higher taxation of the rich, including making our income tax system a wealth tax, at least for the rich, and raising the capital gains tax, then using the new revenue to fund social programs to help the poor and working classes.

Are some billionaires immoral of course  but being one in and itself is not and that is what she is saying . If you did the type of redestribution of wealth she calls for it would destroy our economy and create much more poverty .


Also many of her buddies on the TYT think that’s what should happen and her views and all
Of the justice Democrats  are basically just a copy of many of the hosts on TYT.

[Politician]

I agree with her.

[Badger]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.

The effective tax rate for the highest bracket, 38% again? Or still 35? Either way, the effective tax rate is likewise notably lower for the highest income.

[Cold War Liberal]

Our country has a system where the President of the United States is ostensibly worth $3.1 billion dollars and yet there are dozens of homeless veterans sleeping on the streets two blocks from where he lives. If that's not the definition of a broken, immoral system, then I don't know what is.

However, to me that's not necessarily an argument for a Huey Long-esque maximum legal wealth and/or the overthrow of capitalism itself, it's an argument for much higher taxation of the rich, including making our income tax system a wealth tax, at least for the rich, and raising the capital gains tax, then using the new revenue to fund social programs to help the poor and working classes.

Are some billionaires immoral of course  but being one in and itself is not and that is what she is saying . If you did the type of redestribution of wealth she calls for it would destroy our economy and create much more poverty .


Also many of her buddies on the TYT think that’s what should happen and her views and all
Of the justice Democrats  are basically just a copy of many of the hosts on TYT.

Some people having more wealth than others (even MUCH more) is not inherently immoral, but this country simultaneously being home to Jeff Bezos, a man worth $125 billion dollars, and 40 million people who rely on SNAP to meet their basic food needs is obviously and clearly broken. And yet old out of touch people like Herman Cain, who called AOC clueless on Fox Business a few hours ago, will yell "BUT MUH CLASS WARFARE" if we even remotely do anything to fix the obvious and gigantic problem. As if ever-widening wealth inequality and tax cuts for the wealthy aren't class warfare.

And just because AOC believes things other people who you don't like believe doesn't make AOC's views dumb. TYT is stupid, but AOC isn't.

[Badger]

I don't think being very wealthy itsself is immoral. If I own a company worth 10 billion, I'm also a billionaire, but I usually employ thousands of people. If someone makes billions on the backs of workers who get paid a disgusting loan, it is immoral. Just look at Walmart. But this can happen anywhere, small family owned businesses included.

The actual problem is that while we have a very wealthy elite, we have way too many poor people (for a couple of reasons). Working 40 hours a week and not getting enough pay to make ends meat is disgusting, while CEOs at the same making millions of dollars. Of course, being a CEO is a tough job with a lot of responsibilities, but some of the salaries and bonuses being paid are abhorrant. Especially when these CEOs ruin a company or bank like in the 2008 crash (and even don't face criminal indictment).

Another problem are trusts and cartels. We have a bunch of companies that are much, much too powerful and have way too influence over political decisions.

Oh I definitely agree with you there that the bonuses all the executives got after the 2008 wall street crash was abhorrent and instead many of them should have been jailed or at the very least fired in disgrace.

I also agree trusts are a big problem especially the ones that are too big to fail and they should be broken up.

This.

Regarding the original post, although osr tends to be one of the more honest blue avatars around here, I'm going to ask for a second opinion without reading the article myself because I'm stopped at a light, is this an accurate summary of what AOC said? As in she genuinely thinks allowing billionaires to exist his immoral in and of itself?

Just review the article. I won't ding osr as being dishonest, because he is quoting primarily from the Articles title. However, the hill really did not provide an accurate headline of her statement at all.

Down below the headline it actually quotes what she said on Late Night with Stephen Colbert. She said I think it is immoral to have a system work billionaires exist while there are people in Alabama still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health. She's right! And furthermore, she did not in any manner shape or form say that billionaires should not be allowed to exist. She further stated she doesn't leave all billionaires are immoral.

So in sum, she made the same point that most posters here did, including even old school Republican, that our economy's current overwhelming and growing inequality of wealth is immoral.

Screw The Hill. I know they're not exactly top-notch journalism to begin with, but that type of headline is straight out Fox News level misleading.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Michael Bloomberg has done more to make the world a better place than any US government in the last century. That would be impossible with income caps.

The ethical self-made billionaires of the world are going to save it if they aren't decapitated first.

[ProudModerate2]

... I think the solution though is very high tax rates for the super rich (to include sale of stock) with almost all loopholes closed (charitable deductions allowed), rather than an actual cap.

Agree.
Higher/High-ish tax rates, cutting loopholes and a true-working Alternative Minimum Tax system for the rich.

[Pyro]

Agree with AOC. We need to fight to eliminate the conditions which produce billionaires.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Too often we focus on what people do with their massive fortunes, and not enough on what allowed them to amass those fortunes. Like, it's great that people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates do so much charitable work with their fortunes. But does that outpace the bad of a system that allowed them to amass those fortunes in the first place? I'd argue not even the tiniest bit.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Our country has a system where the President of the United States is ostensibly worth $3.1 billion dollars and yet there are dozens of homeless veterans sleeping on the streets two blocks from where he lives. If that's not the definition of a broken, immoral system, then I don't know what is.

However, to me that's not necessarily an argument for a Huey Long-esque maximum legal wealth and/or the overthrow of capitalism itself, it's an argument for much higher taxation of the rich, including making our income tax system a wealth tax, at least for the rich, and raising the capital gains tax, then using the new revenue to fund social programs to help the poor and working classes.

Are some billionaires immoral of course  but being one in and itself is not and that is what she is saying . If you did the type of redestribution of wealth she calls for it would destroy our economy and create much more poverty .


Also many of her buddies on the TYT think that’s what should happen and her views and all
Of the justice Democrats  are basically just a copy of many of the hosts on TYT.

Some people having more wealth than others (even MUCH more) is not inherently immoral, but this country simultaneously being home to Jeff Bezos, a man worth $125 billion dollars, and 40 million people who rely on SNAP to meet their basic food needs is obviously and clearly broken. And yet old out of touch people like Herman Cain, who called AOC clueless on Fox Business a few hours ago, will yell "BUT MUH CLASS WARFARE" if we even remotely do anything to fix the obvious and gigantic problem. As if ever-widening wealth inequality and tax cuts for the wealthy aren't class warfare.

And just because AOC believes things other people who you don't like believe doesn't make AOC's views dumb. TYT is stupid, but AOC isn't.

The reason Jeff Bezos net worth is what it is is because of how much the stocks of Amazon are worth . If he sold his share of the company he maybe would only get 10-15% of what his stocks are worth right now so that number is misleading .

You can solve much of the problems you have now with the increasing costs of living by using Texas’s model when it comes to housing . The cost of living in many of the cities around the nation are due to idiotic zoning laws . That’s not Bezos fault that’s the governments of California and New York .

Lastly she is a justice democrat and that was founded by Cenk Uygur and Kyle Kulinski and they chose almost all the candidates at first

[Deleted User #4049]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

Actually, you make a good point. We shouldnt grant them incentives to keep expanding their companies. They practically are already monopolies on their respective industries, why give them a reason to expand? It would be economically wiser to intact AOC's plan, as that would mean companies have no reason to expand beyond a certain point, allowing other businesses to crop up and take up shelf space, instead of Amazon just buying everything else in the sector and having complete control over a sector of the econo

Lol do you know what the size of Amazon and Microsoft were when Bezos and Gates became Billionaires . Bill Gates became a billionaire in 1987 when Windows 2.0 came out and Bezos had become a billionaire in the late 90s . Amazon wasn’t even that big of influential in the late 90s.

So in your mind the world would be better if Microsoft couldn’t grow and innovative from where it was in 1987 or Amazon from the late 1990s lol

The world would be much, much better off if Amazon did not exist.

[Badger]

Michael Bloomberg has done more to make the world a better place than any US government in the last century.

Citation desperately needed

[OSR stands with Israel]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

Actually, you make a good point. We shouldnt grant them incentives to keep expanding their companies. They practically are already monopolies on their respective industries, why give them a reason to expand? It would be economically wiser to intact AOC's plan, as that would mean companies have no reason to expand beyond a certain point, allowing other businesses to crop up and take up shelf space, instead of Amazon just buying everything else in the sector and having complete control over a sector of the econo

Lol do you know what the size of Amazon and Microsoft were when Bezos and Gates became Billionaires . Bill Gates became a billionaire in 1987 when Windows 2.0 came out and Bezos had become a billionaire in the late 90s . Amazon wasn’t even that big of influential in the late 90s.

So in your mind the world would be better if Microsoft couldn’t grow and innovative from where it was in 1987 or Amazon from the late 1990s lol

The world would be much, much better off if Amazon did not exist.

No it wouldn’t


Online shopping wouldn’t have developed without them and cloud might not be as good with them either