I saw this Tweet by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and it is beautiful.

 

She ran her campaign on and got elected to office on wanting punitive taxation of the rich.

Now as a member of the United States House of Representatives, she earns a salary of $174,000 per year.  That puts her in the top 3% income bracket for earners in the United States.

Now she realizes that all her policies are going to bite her right in her shapely 3%’er ass.

So now she has to redefine rich to being more than what she earns as a Congresswoman.

So how much is rich enough to get taxed to death?

 

More than she is going to be able to make on a Congresswoman’s salary with the potential for any book deals or speaking fees.

When you ask a socialist “how much money does a person need to have for them to be part of the ‘evil rich?'”

The answer is always “one more dollar than I have.”

It never fails.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

7 thoughts on “The definition of “rich””
  1. “. . . and it’s like 10 people.”

    Interesting. Name them.

    Let them know just how much of their earnings you propose to take from them.

    Let’s see how that goes . . .

    1. One of the challenges of going after the “rich” is that they always seem to change every decade or so.

      It was the Getty’s, the deHavilands, the Vanderbilts, etc… Then it was the Gates and Buffets, not it is the Zuckerbergs, Musks, and Bezos.

      Who are the rich that need to be screwed over for the benefit of the poor? Who knows, it is a different person every year.

    2. @GMC70: Based on her heavily-hyphenated descriptions, going in order:

      – Donald J. Trump, by proxy.
      – Betsy DeVos.
      – George W. Bush & family.
      – Republicans in general.

      But not George Soros or Michael Bloomberg, even though each of them has more money than her entire list combined.

  2. Silly little dingbat. Observers from Adam Smith to Mark Twain to more modern figures have noted a common fact about taxation.

    When the government goes after people’s wealth, people stop trying to make money, and spend their time and effort trying to hide what they have.

    Then, there’s the fact that most wealth is not an actual physical thing, but an idea. If AOC were to go to confiscate the wealth behind Amazon, Google, and so on, all that money would literally disappear- even if Bezos and co were willing participants. Amazon is worth umpty billions of dollars because of the idea that Amazon stock will pay so much in dividends every year. Try to confiscate that, and that value would just go away. The photos of Venezuelan streets littered with worthless paper money comes to mind.

  3. “Student loan shark rich” OH KEWL, she wants to tax the gubmint…hey stupid, the gubmint runs the student loan program. What a bleepin bleep bleep IDIOT

    1. She’s not the only Dem who doesn’t know that. Did you see the clip from a recent House hearing (headed by dingbat Waters), where a bunch of bankers were challenged about their student loan practices? They all gently replied they aren’t in that business, until they got to Jamie Dimon who said they had gotten out in 2010 because of the government takeover. Neat.

      I just thought of a fun definition of “rich” that would mess them up nicely: anyone with enough money to buy an electric car. 🙂

Login or register to comment.