What AOC actually said.

[Truth Detector]

hahahaha It's NOT mandatory. Don't be a wimp. REFUSE Social Security and Medicare, it's only for Lefty Marxist types. You're better than that!!!

You don't know much about the law do you? In addition, if I paid into the plan, how am I not allowed to get my benefit back? I didn't have a choice did I?

Those who receive Social Security benefits are automatically enrolled in Medicare. Therefore, participation in Medicare really is not optional.

If you or your spouse plan to continue working past age 65 – and your (or your spouse’s) employer will continue to provide health and prescription drug coverage – then you could be allowed to opt out of enrollment in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) and Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage).

However, opting out of Medicare Part B without a valid reason can lead to a 10 percent penalty being added to your Part B premium when you do sign up at a later date – and that penalty will remain on your premium going forward. This can result in much more costly Medicare premiums in the future.

 

[Jack]

You have to pay into it, but no one is going to force you to collect SS and Medicare. Stand your ground. Don't be a Commie. Refuse SS and Medicare.

You don't know much about the law do you? In addition, if I paid into the plan, how am I not allowed to get my benefit back? I didn't have a choice did I?

Those who receive Social Security benefits are automatically enrolled in Medicare. Therefore, participation in Medicare really is not optional.

If you or your spouse plan to continue working past age 65 – and your (or your spouse’s) employer will continue to provide health and prescription drug coverage – then you could be allowed to opt out of enrollment in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) and Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage).

However, opting out of Medicare Part B without a valid reason can lead to a 10 percent penalty being added to your Part B premium when you do sign up at a later date – and that penalty will remain on your premium going forward. This can result in much more costly Medicare premiums in the future.

 

[Truth Detector]

You have to pay into it, but no one is going to force you to collect SS and Medicare. Stand your ground. Don't be a Commie. Refuse SS and Medicare.

Stop being an idiot JackOFF.

 

[CFM]

You seem to whittle down every discussion into a name-calling contest. Have you ever noticed that?

Have you ever noticed on threads related to this type of topic (i.e. - social welfare), you tend to beg for someone to do what you refuse to do for yourself?

 

[CFM]

You have to pay into it, but no one is going to force you to collect SS and Medicare. Stand your ground. Don't be a Commie. Refuse SS and Medicare.

Having been required to pay into it is the sole reason I'll take what's mine. I won't need it but will still take it and hope someone that paid so little into it and does need it falls short.

 

[CFM]

hahahaha It's NOT mandatory. Don't be a wimp. REFUSE Social Security and Medicare, it's only for Lefty Marxist types. You're better than that!!!

Typical socialist mindset. Force people to pay into something then expect them to not get it back. Based on that mindset, those that don't pay into the pot that funds their food stamps, etc. should refuse to accept it.

 

[countryboy]

You obviously have not thought this through, and are merely plagiarizing and parroting the words of others you have read.

Most rich people make money from investment income. Not from wage income.

There are very, very few Americans who are earning more than 10 million dollars a year in wages. And that means very few who would be effected by a 70 percent marginal rate on wages over ten million.

Investment income is taxed differently that wage income, in case you did not know.

Soooo, if this new idea to punish high wage earners won't affect very many, how much revenue can be expected from these confiscatory rates?

 

[StoneByStone]

Soooo, if this new idea to punish high wage earners won't affect very many, how much revenue can be expected from these confiscatory rates?

It's not about punishing anyone. It's about decentralizing wealth in a way that benefits everyone, while allowing the rich to still be rich.

 

[countryboy]

It's not about punishing anyone. It's about decentralizing wealth in a way that benefits everyone, while allowing the rich to still be rich.

How so, if it will supposedly affect few? Of course it's about punishment, winning is no longer enough for Democrat Party members.

"Allowing the rich to be rich"? Gee, how absolutely magnanimous of you. Actually allowing people to keep their own money.

 

[StoneByStone]

How so, if it will supposedly affect few? Of course it's about punishment, winning is no longer enough for Democrat Party members.

"Allowing the rich to be rich"? Gee, how absolutely magnanimous of you. Actually allowing people to keep their own money.

It will affect everyone. We all live under this economy, so improving it will help us all. It's not punishing anyone if it's helping everyone.

 

[countryboy]

It will affect everyone. We all live under this economy, so improving it will help us all. It's not punishing anyone if it's helping everyone.

So all you really have are vagaries, got it. Higher taxes help no one.

 

[StoneByStone]

So all you really have are vagaries, got it. Higher taxes help no one.

Higher taxes help everyone if they're only done to the 1%. This spreads around wealth, which improves the economy, and decentralizes power.

 

[Taichiliberal]

"It’s an unspoken rule that one seat on the powerful House Ways and Means committee always goes to a New Yorker. And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is going for it."
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...nservative-democrat-for-a-huge-committee-seat

Interesting take....we'll see.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Soooo, if this new idea to punish high wage earners won't affect very many, how much revenue can be expected from these confiscatory rates?

For your education:
https://slate.com/business/2017/08/the-history-of-tax-rates-for-the-rich.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5

 

[countryboy]

For your education:
https://slate.com/business/2017/08/the-history-of-tax-rates-for-the-rich.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5

Um, did you even read your article?

 

[reagansghost]

AOC owns the GOP

they run if fear at her mere mention, like squealing little pigs from the slaughter

 

[Irish Exit]

Higher taxes help everyone if they're only done to the 1%. This spreads around wealth, which improves the economy, and decentralizes power.

Wealth doesn't get taxed except at transfer, and then only sometimes. High taxes won't change who owns all the "wealth" (albeit mostly an illusion)

 

[StoneByStone]

High taxes won't change who owns all the "wealth" (albeit mostly an illusion)

High taxes for the 1% would spread wealth throughout the population if they are used to fund social programs. Having a living wage for the working-class would also help a lot.

 

[Irish Exit]

High taxes for the 1% would spread wealth throughout the population if they are used to fund social programs. Having a living wage for the working-class would also help a lot.

Bill Gates will own just as many shares of Microsoft whether you tax his dividends at a higher rate or not, so no you would not change his wealth and spread it among anybody.

 

[StoneByStone]

Bill Gates will own just as many shares of Microsoft whether you tax his dividends at a higher rate or not, so no you would not change his wealth and spread it among anybody.

So if the government takes more money from him, he's going to have the exact same amount of money?