A fact-check of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's tax hike might prove more than intended

Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker columnist, jumped into action Saturday after Rep. Steve Scalise retweeted a piece from Twitchy sister site Hot Air regarding Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s planned tax hike on income over $10 million. Her plan is for a 70 percent tax rate, although her policy team (jokingly) apologized for not yet talking her up to 90 percent.

Republicans: Let Americans keep more of their own hard-earned money
Democrats: Take away 70% of your income and give it to leftist fantasy programs https://t.co/NxJPSCqvrt

— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) January 5, 2019

To be fair, Scalise is oversimplifying here, but it seems a formal fact-check was warranted anyway.

Presumably the Minority Whip knows what marginal tax rates are? It's not 70 percent of all income, but 70 percent of any income earned ABOVE $10 million. You may disagree with the policy but a politician has an obligation to describe it correctly. https://t.co/lPSeou1XJf

— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) January 5, 2019

For the record, fewer than 0.05 percent of all U.S. households have income above $10 million. The @AOC proposal would not even be aimed the fabled top one percent.

— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) January 5, 2019

So @SpeakerPelosi would be hit?

— Paul Foster (@pfoster19) January 5, 2019

what’s ur point glenn?

— Sam Broadway (@sam_bway) January 5, 2019

So wait … then where is all of the money for Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal going to come from?

And therefore would not come close to paying for a fraction of any of her radical society upheaval programs…

— JamesMadison (@potus4madison) January 5, 2019

In other words, it won’t be enough to fund this stupid Green New Deal so everyone else will have to pony up, too.

Thanks for explaining how much of a farce the proposal is, Glenn. https://t.co/JHo52ltTSh

— RBe (@RBPundit) January 5, 2019

What would that tax actually accomplish? How much of her green new deal could be financed on this damning tax rate? You really think people in that income bracket would continue to make that much, given that new tax rate? No they wouldn't. The confiscatory tax would do nada.

— Willie Vanderbrink (@OilFart1) January 5, 2019

just for the record, the revenue generated would not be enough for all her free stuff. Leftist/marxists won't admit it but they must go after the upper middle class. then the shit will hit the fan.

— Ceaser (@siessdav) January 5, 2019

I think that the breakdown in communication here is that conservatives tend to believe that taxing A SINGLE PERSON at 90% is wrong. It's not about how many, it's immoral on principle. https://t.co/8QncSxTtRq

— Niko Rakos (@realNikoRakos) January 5, 2019

So her "proposal" is to keep current rates in place on income up to $9,999,999.99? You'll have to cite chapter and verse on that, Mr. Fact Checker. https://t.co/ALbRkcgm4j

— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) January 5, 2019

I see @AOC retweeted this. It doesn't seem to be a tweet supporting her plan. I've reread it a few times and it seems to say that it wouldn't be aimed at targeting the fabled 1%. That can only mean it is targeted to us middle class. https://t.co/HEX81rEwxU

— Musicman (@musicoflife100) January 5, 2019

To analyze her proposal you need to see all the brackets; those making $10M or more probably can take compensation in less taxable ways than w2 wage income. Stock, options, etc. But I bet the threshold for 70% bracket would soon come way down.

— Frederick Mackintosh (@bigmack600) January 5, 2019

Yep.

Thanks for the fact check. How many of those incomes are reported as "regular income" as opposed to "capital gains?" Once you figure that out, take a moment and think about what a 60% capital gains rate would do capital investment in the United States.

— antipinko (@antipinko) January 5, 2019

The giant sucking sound as capital exited the economy would be deafening. It would make 2008 look like a simple market correction.

— antipinko (@antipinko) January 5, 2019

This thread was inspired by another tweet, but it’s worth working in here:

The example she uses is 60-70% on income over 10 million per year.

How much money would that bring in? My guess is….not even remotely as much as she thinks. https://t.co/4t0Kifuc4Z

— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) January 5, 2019

There are about 1,100 people who make over $20 million per year in the US.https://t.co/sgb2fGUsPN

— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) January 5, 2019

Of those 1,100 or so 205 made more than $50 million a year. Combined their income was $19.95 billion.

The federal government spends about $12 billion a day. And that's before all her new spending. https://t.co/MVrPvWRNUH

— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) January 5, 2019

But Ocasio-Cortez has already made her plan to fund Medicare for All perfectly clear: “You just pay for it.”

Not only that, she’s also proposed Medicare for all, universal income and open borders. Add in free college and the rate will have to be 100% for all taxpayers.

— Joseph Spiegel (@joedocbc) January 5, 2019

It’s not about the money with this one, it’s about the social justice of it. Getting even.
She has horrible ideas for the country.

— Rob Knox ?? (@Negedex) January 5, 2019

Can't wait till they actually give her data to look at.

— Rob (@mylifeasrobby) January 5, 2019

Related:

We. Just. Can't: The look on Anderson Cooper’s face when AOC admits she wants to tax ‘tippy top’ at 70% is PRICELESS (watch) https://t.co/2wKNX0uMsu

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) January 5, 2019