Ocasio-Cortez Tax Plan Creates 82.7% Top Income Tax Rate for New Yorkers

In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will call for federal income tax rates of up to 70 percent as part of a proposal to create vast new government spending programs.

The current top federal income tax rate is 37 percent, so the Ocasio-Cortez plan will nearly double the tax rate for the top bracket.

New York State has a top income tax rate of 8.82 percent while New York City has a top rate of 3.876 percent. So under this proposal, her constituents would pay a top combined income tax rate of 82.7 percent:

Federal income tax rate: 70.0%
NY state income tax rate: 8.82%
NYC income tax rate: 3.876%
TOTAL: 82.696%

New Yorkers would not be the only ones suffering under the Ocasio-Cortez plan. California taxpayers would pay a top rate of 83.3 percent (70 percent plus the California rate of 13.30 percent).

In addition to this high income tax rate, taxpayers would remain impacted by other taxes including payroll taxes, taxes on capital gains income and dividends, and the death tax.

Further, while Ocasio-Cortez has not released details of any other tax hikes to pay for her plan, this would likely not be the only income tax increase if she had her way. For instance, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed a $2 trillion 2.2 percent payroll tax on all families and a $10 trillion 6.2 percent payroll tax on all businesses as part of his socialized healthcare plan.

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) have proposed numerous tax hikes including a new, 5 percent surtax on those making $500,000 per year and an increase in the Obamacare payroll tax from 0.9 percent to 4 percent.

Regardless of the specific proposal, it is clear that Democrats want higher taxes on the American people as they made clear when they changed the House rules to make it easier to raise taxes.

Just last night, Democrats rejected a proposal to make permanent the $2,000 child tax credit (up from 1,000) and the $24,000 standard deduction for families (up from $12,000).

Based on their record this will not be the first of many cases where Democrats oppose middle class tax relief and advocate for higher taxes on the American people.

70 percent tax rates on ultra rich would help pay for “Green New Deal,” Ocasio-Cortez says

Newly minted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says tax rates for the nation’s wealthiest should increase to as much 70 percent to fund a new initiative to combat climate change — even if that means she’s labeled a “radical.”

“If that’s what radical means, call me a radical,” she said in an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” that will air in full on Sunday.

The New York Democrat said the tax hike would help fund the Green New Deal, which aims at eliminating carbon emissions in the US within 12 years.

“That is the goal. It’s ambitious,” she said. “It’s going to require a lot of rapid change that we don’t even conceive as possible right now. What is the problem with trying to push our technological capacities to the furthest extent possible?”

The 29-year-old said the plan could include “an element where people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes.”

“You know, you look at our tax rates back in the ’60s, and when you have a progressive tax rate system, your tax rate let’s say from zero to $75,000 may be 10 percent or 15 percent, etc.,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“But once you get to the tippy-tops on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent,” she continued. “That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate. It means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”

The current top tax rate is 37 percent.

When “60 Minutes” host Anderson Cooper described her ideas as a “radical agenda,” she responded, “I think that it only has ever been radicals that have changed this country.”

Kyrsten Sinema is sworn in today as the nation’s first openly bisexual senator and won’t place hand on Bible

Newly elected Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema refused to be sworn in on a Bible, opting, instead, to place her right hand on a book of laws, including the U.S Constitution and the Arizona Constitution.

The book Sen. Sinema placed her hand on to be sworn in came from the Library of Congress, her office told the Arizona Republic.

“Kyrsten always gets sworn in on a Constitution simply because of her love for the Constitution,” the senator’s office said.

Another Democrat Rips Into Ocasio-cortez, Wishes She’d Just ‘Go Away’

There is at least one other reason Sinema refused to place her hand on the Bible. According to the Pew Research Center for Religion and Public Life, the Arizonan is the only member of the Senate who does not identify as a member of a religion.

Sinema, who started her political career as a member of the Green Party, also identifies as bisexual. She is only the second member of the Senate to identify as LGBTQ.

Despite her current claim to love the U.S. Constitution, in her work with left-wing groups in the early 2000s, Sinema was far less solicitous of the law of the land. In fact, she was quoted in 2002 as saying she thought it was acceptable that anarchists and Antifa types perpetrated violence, carried weapons, and destroyed property in pursuit of the extremist goals.

“When AAPJ attended May Day (sponsored by the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition), we knew that their guidelines differ from ours,” the Washington Examiner wrote of an email Sinema sent in 2002. “They are okay with weapons and property destruction in some instances, and so those of us who chose to attend the event knew that it would be inappropriate to ask someone to not destroy property or to carry a weapon.”

Journalist Who Broke Story Of Mueller Deleting Text Messages Dies Mysteriously

Bre Payton was a Christian writer for the conservative online news magazine The Federalist and a guest commentator on the Fox News Channel. And she was a rising star…

She seemed unafraid to take on things that mattered, including breaking the hard-hitting piece DOJ Destroyed Missing Strzok/Page Text Messages Before The IG Could Review Them on December 13th, where, unlike the mainstream media who later focused on the idea that there was ‘no evidence’ that these text messages were deliberately destroyed, Payton leaned towards the conclusion that there was criminal intent in these deletions, a notion supported by Donald Trump.

And then she died suddenly on Friday in San Diego. She was 26…

I don’t have any definitive ‘proof’ for the notion that Payton was killed because she was going to disclose some type of sensitive information against the Deep State; however, it must be said that the cause and circumstances of her death are befuddling enough for one to consider such an idea. My only intention is to explain the facts and allow you to draw your own conclusions.

Timeline
Wednesday, December 26th: Bre Payton, who lives in Washington, was in San Diego to be a guest host on a show on the One America News Network. Her last tweet was announcing to followers that they could see the show broadcast ‘right now’ and responding to one follower who was watching it. So as of Wednesday night, all was well with Bre Payton.

Thursday, December 27th: Bre was staying with good friend Morgan Murtaugh while in San Diego. Morgan found Payton unconscious in her bed around 8:30 am, as disclosed in this tweet:

24 hours ago I found my friend unconscious and called 911. She’s been in a coma since and really needs a miracle right now. Please, if you’re religious at all, send prayers this way. We really need them. https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/brepayton

Friday, December 28th: By Friday morning, Bre had passed away…

I don’t know enough to say it’s impossible that Bre Payton died so suddenly from a virus she had contracted naturally without any prior symptoms, but it just doesn’t feel right. You would expect that she would have some pretty significant symptoms in the days prior. Add that to the fact that we have covered many stories of people who have died mysterious deaths who all happened to be courageous, outspoken people who were willing to challenge the establishment, and might have had some information that was damaging to the Deep State and were willing to reveal it, as she showed in breaking the Mueller story, you can begin to understand the suspicions.

REAL NEWS

Judge Blocks New York City Law Aimed at Curbing Airbnb Rentals

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a recent New York City law intended to crack down on Airbnb and other online home-sharing sites that city officials say have essentially turned residential apartments into illegal hotels and have aggravated the city’s housing shortage.

The law, which was enacted last summer and was to go into effect next month, would have required the home-sharing services to disclose monthly to the city detailed information about tens of thousands of listings, and the identities and addresses of their hosts.

Airbnb and another firm, HomeAway, sued in August, contending the law was unconstitutional.

On Thursday, the judge, Paul A. Engelmayer of United States District Court in Manhattan, granted Airbnb and HomeAway’s request for a preliminary injunction, stopping the law from going into effect. He wrote that the ordinance violated the guarantee against illegal searches and seizures in the Fourth Amendment, and that the companies were likely to prevail on their claim.

“The city has not cited any decision suggesting that the governmental appropriation of private business records on such a scale, unsupported by individualized suspicion or any tailored justification, qualifies as a reasonable search and seizure,” the judge wrote.
Airbnb called the decision “a huge win for Airbnb and its users,” including “thousands of New Yorkers at risk of illegal surveillance.”

The decision could aid home-sharing services in their fight with other cities that have sought to regulate them, putting a limit on how much information local governments can demand.

The ruling also dealt a major blow to New York City’s political leaders, Mayor Bill de Blasio and the City Council speaker, Corey Johnson, who had championed the law as a way of combating rising rents. Mr. de Blasio signed the law in August after it passed the Council unanimously. It was seen as a major victory for Mr. Johnson just months into his tenure as speaker.

Speaking at a news conference, Mr. de Blasio defended the law on Thursday and predicted that the city would “ultimately prevail” in court.

“We have a huge city with a lot of Airbnb activity and a lot of concern in our neighborhoods and, unfortunately, a lot of examples of abuse,” he said. “To put a strong data regimen in place made all the sense in the world.”

Jacob Tugendrajch, a spokesman for Mr. Johnson, called the law a “vital protection against illegal hotels” and said the Council would continue “the fight for this common sense, data-driven law.”

Mr. de Blasio has contrasted home-sharing services with the hotel industry, which is subject to inspections and regulations that allow the city to hold owners accountable. He has argued that Airbnb should also be required to turn over information that helps the city protect the public interest.

An influential union for hotel workers, the Hotel Trades Council, strongly backed the law.

In a 52-page ruling, Judge Engelmayer did not rule on the merits of Airbnb and HomeAway’s claims, but said the injunction would block the law from taking effect pending resolution of the litigation, which he said would proceed expeditiously.

The law would require online rental services to disclose the addresses of its listings and the identities of its hosts to the city’s Office of Special Enforcement on a monthly basis. Hosts would also be required to list whether the dwelling is their primary residence and whether the entire unit or a portion is available for short-term rentals. Companies that failed to share the data would be subject to fines of $1,500 for each listing they did not disclose.

New York City is Airbnb’s largest domestic market, with more than 50,000 apartment rental listings. But under state law, it is illegal in most buildings for an apartment to be rented out for less than 30 days unless the permanent tenant is residing in the apartment at the same time.

City officials hoped the new disclosure requirements would make it much easier for the city to enforce the state law and would lead to thousands of units rented through Airbnb in the city coming off the market.

Airbnb and other home-rental services have been battling regulation nationally and abroad, as cities including Seattle, San Francisco and London have required such companies to share some data through a registration system for listings.
Sign up for the New York Today Newsletter
Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more.

San Francisco, for example, enacted a law in 2016 that fined home-sharing companies if a host rented an apartment through their platforms without registering it first with the city. Airbnb sued and reached a settlement with the city in 2017, under which the company agreed to register hosts automatically and to turn over a monthly accounting of its listings. Listings on Airbnb plunged by half after the rules went into effect.

But the measure New York City passed went further. Rather than set up a registration system, the law instead required Airbnb and similar companies to turn over the information its users had shared with them, including personal information about the hosts.

Roberta A. Kaplan, a lawyer for Airbnb, said, “I’m not aware of any city that has tried anything of this scope.” The opinion, she added, “sends a strong message to other cities that the New York approach is not the way to go about doing this.”

Judge Engelmayer, in his opinion, said that in the era before electronic data storage, an attempt by a municipality “to compel an entire industry monthly to copy and produce its records as to all local customers would have been unthinkable under the Fourth Amendment.”

The judge said that upholding the ordinance would invite other cities to make “similar demands on e-commerce companies” to routinely turn over broad-ranging customer records to investigative agencies.

That, he added, could allow regulators “to troll these records for potential violations of law” even when there had been no basis to suspect a violation.
Correction: January 3, 2019
An earlier version of this article misstated the fines levied under a new law requiring home-sharing sites to turn over data to New York City about their users. The fine is $1,500 for each listing a company fails to disclose, not $25,000.

READ FULL