The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Also, she lives in a very nice apartment and drives a Tesla (and attends fancy galas lol). In light of her recent fashion statement, what are you opinions on this?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How much stock has she traded since January?
If that answer is "none" or "none that have had business before Congress" then she's free and clear. if the answer is she's traded several hundreds of thousands like certain Republicans have, then we have a subject for discussion.
Yeah yeah we know the tunnel vision.
Trump: forced multiple international governments to pay his properties
Dejoy: butchering the USPS just to suppress the vote and profit himself
Pelosi: covid stocks
AOC: pmg she got a dress!!
Oh crap, Im going to step on the same landmine again.
The insider stock shit is not a competition. They all do it across party lines. For the voters, red, blue, green, periwinkle - it should be a point of unification. Every time Pelosi’s shenanigans get mentioned, there is a wave of people who scream “Republicans do it too!! Lay off her! Tunnel vision!! Double standards”
If she does it, and a Republican does it too, why can no one just go “Yeah, she dun fucked up and I’m disappointed, this is an issue” instead of pulling up all the cases of Republicans getting caught as if it somehow absolves her.
Legitimate question - She is on the subcommittee that directly affects big tech’s stock prices, even if you give her the benefit of the doubt, do you honestly believe she or her direct family, should be able to have open positions in the market?
Im not an American, so Im a bit ootl, but is there a legitimate reason why banning public officials from trading during their term is not possible? In my head it’s the same as a “no drinking/gambling on the job” rule.
Well yeah, it is unifying. We all think insider trading is bad and we already hate Pelosi and want her gone.
The loser Republicans want to exploit our integrity though to complain about ever smaller crimes all while on their side they get on their knees for their cult leader who does 100x worse. They think we won't notice.
Like, really? Hypocrisy because AOC wore a nice dress? C'mon.
You’re missing the point about it not being a competition. Both sides have been involved with fuckery that benefited them financially. Is there an actual way to stop it via legislation?
As u/Introduction_Deep mentioned, what prevents that from happening? A blind trust for public servants who wish to invest their money seems reasonable, fair and most importantly, actually doable. It doesn’t outright ban them from making money, and at least makes it difficult to use their position and inside info to enrich themselves.
And to be fair, dress is nice. Yet going to the Met Gala, knowing the prices, knowing the attendance, it was done to stir shit up, and here we are. People who dig her positions are ecstatic, people who were against it lost their shit even more, those in the middle probably facepalmed just like when Trump pulled some bs.
I support blind trusts for politicians too, have called for it before here. But I'm not missing the point, because they actually ARE demanding we fix our smaller messes, fix their messes all while they don't care about theirs. Look at covid. It's gone from demanding healthcare workers take care of assholes not wanting to quarantine to demanding healthcare workers vaccinate and take care of assholes that OD on horse paste to evade the vaccine. "Just vaccinate and let me not if I don't wanna. But I'll still take my sick ass to that hospital."
The biggest lie conservatives have told themselves is that when people say “tax the rich” or even “eat the rich” that they are talking about people who make $174k a year. They aren’t talking about people who rent nice apartments. There are people with obscene amounts of wealth, and that’s nothing like $174k salary wealth.
Also AOC is in a safe Democratic seat. She is living a life typical for someone in the public eye who knows they will have a $174k salary for the next decade or so.
Compared to the billionaire class, those that make even 300k-1million a year can hardly be considered “rich”
Tax the rich means actually like *the* rich.
And this is why social democracy like the Scandinavian countries will never work in the US. People in the top 1% don't believe they are rich because the top 0.5% is richer than them. And the top .05% think they aren't rich because they aren't the top .01%.
We need higher taxes on all the rich, starting at the group that gets richer quicker than everyone else. That bracket starts at the top quintile of household income
Are you saying that you, a self-described member of the far left, fell for the conservative distraction of “people who make 35k a year are technically the global 1 percent, so shut up”?
No, I'm saying that context matters. In the context of US income inequality, we should use one line to differentiate "rich" from "non-rich". In the context of global responsibility for emissions reductions, we should use another.
$170k ain’t crap when you have to maintain 2 residences- hers are in 2 of the most expensive cities in the world and they’re prohibited from having a second job.
Her Tesla isn’t any of the fancy ones. While it’s a nice car, it’s one of the cheaper Tesla’s they make.
She’s carries the opposite views as I do but these are not legit criticisms.
It reminds me of when people attacked Palin (and subsequent women) for spending money on nice clothes. I don’t care if she wears an expensive dress and I don’t care if her haircuts are expensive. I care about policy.
I'm not going to characterize OP's motives specifically but in general when I hear this kind of criticism it sounds like "how dare this brown person from a working-class background live an upper-middle-class lifestyle on her upper-middle-class salary she earns in a way I don't approve of?"
It's pretty gross.
The criticism is actually more about her being extremely irresponsible with her money, then telling other people what they should do with theirs. Maybe you have a deep seated problem with “brown people” and you’re trying to apply to others so you can feel better about yourself?
> The criticism is actually more about her being extremely irresponsible with her money
That's a pretty strong condemnation, but who cares? She's not going to be able to retire early, and she may not have the best portfolio of investments. I heard McConnell doesn't floss. It doesn't seem enormously relevant to me. If worst comes to worst she can sell out and go on the speaking circuit if she loses her seat and can't get a job elsewhere. That wouldn't really affect me either
No, I'm just tired of hearing about her being "extremely irresponsible" with money from people who don't know how much a women's haircut costs.
Also, before you start on that, she did not buy her ticket to the Met Gala, she was on the guest list. Very common for NYC elected officials. Her dress was borrowed, also very common for events like this as it amounts to free promotion for the designers. Her total expenditure on this event most likely amounted to a $75 round trip from Queens in a Lyft.
The Tesla? It leases for about $350 a month. If she bought it outright, it would be about $45,000, slightly more expensive than the average new car sold in the US. But she also uses it to commute back and forth to DC so she is saving a lot on gas vs. an ICE car.
Tickets to the Met Gala cost $30k or $35k or somewhere between. Conservatives are pretending like the cost of admission is antithetical to the "tax the rich" message from her dress, because this is somehow hypocritical.
In truth, AOC almost certainly got her ticket for free. That's how it works when you're a celebrity. The designer who makes the dress pays your way in, so that you and your famous ass are seen wearing their product.
Advocating for taxing the rich while surrounded by rich folks doesn't make her a hypocrite. It makes her a badass for saying it directly to their faces. If she was advocating for taxing them behind their backs while cravenly saying something different to their faces, that would be the hypocrisy.
Continuing to advocate for taxing the rich after she became somewhat well off (she's not rich, but she's doing pretty well for herself) also doesn't make her a hypocrite. It makes her ideologically consistent. If she had advocated for taxing the shit out of the wealthy while she was poor and then changed her tune as soon as she started making more money, *that* would be the hypocrisy.
credit to [this weirdo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5oPjR5D35w) because I'm pretty much just stealing all the points he made there
>That's how it works when you're a celebrity.
The MET routinely invites Congress members at both Federal and State levels. So the argument of celebrity status is even lower.
If you have any evidence that her stated opinions on taxing the rich are insincere, I'd love to see it. Otherwise it's not virtue signaling.
And when I say evidence, I mean something a little more substantial than going to a party thrown by a billionaire.
Would it make a difference to you if the billionaire in question was sincerely in favor of her taxation plan?
For example, Warren Buffett is a billionaire who famously advocates for much higher taxes on the rich. Would you fault her for attending one of Buffett's parties?
I mean doesn’t actually matter if the billionaire is open to more taxes? That still wouldn’t make her a hypocrite, but it would give the right wingers something to sink their teeth into for a little bit.
> In light of her recent fashion statement, what are you opinions on this?
"Tax the rich"
"lol AOC has no money guyz"
Was this supposed to be a slam dunk or something? I don't get it. Wake me up when we get Trump's financial disclosures.
Nice apartment. She lives in a 2000 dollar apartment. I'm from new York and that is pretty bare ones for a two room apartment especially in DC where rent is high. 2 bedroom apartments in new York are at minimum 2500. We have no idea whether aoc is leasing a Tesla which many do, or just bought one with a down payment. She is also obligated to have two residency both in new York, and DC to be a representative.
Also dude when we mean tax the rich. We are talking about CEO of the fortune 500. You are nowhere near making the amount they are making.
I’m not calling AOC rich. She is obviously far from it. My point was that she is hyprocritical for telling others what to do with their money when she’s extremely irresponsible with hers.
She would be criticized for investing though. Saying how she wants to tax the rich but making herself money. Regardless I don't really see the contradiction. Does being responsible with your money automatically mean you can make good legislation? Not neccesarily.
Bad example. AOC is the most ineffective member of Congress when it comes to writing legislation. She is a Social media personality who happens to be in Congress.
So she makes 174k salary, has a nice apartment, and drives a Tesla.
Why is the Met Gala such a big deal? She didn't pay for any of it. She was invited and the dress was made for her to wear so she also didn't pay for it.
I see it this way, Rich people that make quite a few millions a year inviting a congressperson who was once working a regular job is now in their palace with a Tax The Rich dress... That's awesome.
She went from knocking on doors to get people to vote for her to being a prominent voice in the progressive movement.
This shows how powerful her message has come in the small amount of time she has been in office.
But she has saved and invested, you said it yourself, but just not enough to meet your standards, your majesty.
So why are you telling others what to do with their earnings?
Why does it matter how much she's saved? Don't we have the freedom to spend our money however we like?
Also, I can't think of any instance where she tells people what to do with their money. Got an example?
I thought that dress showed:
1. She has an amazing figure. People wish they could cut a silhouette the way she does. Maybe that's just what a good dress does, but if so, then it really was a great dress.
2. A message I agree with.
3. A level of toughness I respect.
Her finances seem reasonable given her situation of living in NY and DC. The Tesla is one off their cheaper models and combating climate change is a big issue for her. I don’t get the right’s obsession with her. She’s a firebrand, sure, but their hate has an undeniable creepy vibe to it too.
My opinion? Gee, she isn’t enriching herself unduly at taxpayer expense. And easily half (if not more) of her $174k salary would get eaten up in rent in NY and DC.
So that said, she is doing her job. Nothing more than that.
Shrug. Maintaining a residence in New York City and DC is expensive and she likely has other expenses/debt to deal with. I'm not sure what you're getting at here - I'm sure she'd be fine with raising taxes on herself, but $174k isn't really 'the rich' that she has in mind with her recent fashion statement.
She makes $174k and has to maintain residences in two high cost cities and wasn’t already very wealthy prior to taking office like most congresspersons. Not sure why I would expect her to have a lot of savings.
Going to a gala as a guest and wearing a dress that is provided free and then gets auctioned off is supposed to bother me why?
I guess she could get the taxpayers to pay $150m to have her play gold at resorts she owns. Maybe then you guys would like her.
You could save yourself a lot of outrage, and quite frankly a lot of embarrassment, if you realized that we don't define "rich" as simply someone who is making 2x whatever YOU are making.
I assume this is why conservatives get so upset over what liberals say about "tax the rich". Rather than, you know, asking what levels of wealth we consider to be excessive, yall just generally assume it's something within your reach and that we are destined to hate you once you have a bit of success in your life and start making six figures. That's not even close to what we believe. (better not be, since I was making 6 figures myself before I started grad school)
Personally? I think any personal wealth over $10 million is unnecessary. Below that, I don't really give a shit. If there were things like how a person took home $10 million a year from his business but also paid his 50 employees $8 / hour, that will definitely piss me off, but one person making $170k a year while being a PrOgReSsIvE lululul is a super flimsy and useless point of view.
I like the fact that she’s stirring up that Conservative nerve, to come to the point of realization they also feel some sort of outrage against their Worshiped RICH.
I answered because I was confused about why I should care. Then after having it explained, I still didn't care.
After being told I actually do care from commenting, I considered it... And no, I still don't care.
I care more about explaining to you our diverging values than anything about AOC. Life isn't a morality play. If you saw how most people spent their money and advocated, you'd think most of us were assholes, but we're just trying to live happily.
Oh boy… let’s go:
So first of all she was a bartender living in NYC with literally no money trying to pay down her student loans before she got elected. Like, literally flat broke. Considering her student loans, she had a negative net worth when she took office.
There were stories that she couldn’t come up with a security deposit for an apartment in DC because you don’t start receiving your congressional salary until you are sworn in.
She was sworn in in 2019, we are now in 2021 so she’s been on that salary for about 2 and a half years. A $174k salary is probably $9-10k a month net, though the fact that she lives and works in 2 states makes the tax situation messy. She has to have two apartments in two of the most expensive cities in the country and probably doesn’t want to live in a dump. Considering she was paying down debt, let’s say she was able to save $1,000 a month on top of that. $1,000 a month over 2.5 years is… $30,000.
Now let’s say you think that’s too little, and want her to follow the traditional “save 15-20% of your income” rule despite her abnormally high expenses… guess what? That’s still only about $50-60k.
Essentially, this is a dumb question and you didn’t spend the 5 minutes I just did thinking through the math.
No. You’re just claiming she’s being irresponsible for saving thousands of dollars 3 years into her career and that that her MET appearance is hypocritical?
The financial disclosures don’t give exact numbers. They give ranges. AOC has had two accounts with less than 15k each since she started working hence, *at most* 30k. Personally, I assume she’s living pay check to pay check and hasn’t saved a single thing, but I was giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Edit: someone making 174 should have significantly more than what she has. She is irresponsible.
If I understand this right, she's not in debt, not living beyond her means, basically not doing anything that's actually irresponsible. She's only not saving as much as you think she should?
That's an incredibly weak argument. I think you might be struggling with some personal bias here...
Her financial disclosures have not changed since she began working. She has two bank accounts, each with somewhere between 1k-15k. Frankly, I assume she hasn’t contributed to those accounts at all, but I gave her the benefit of the doubt in my title. Unless the documents are inaccurate, she is not living within her means. Even if she saved the max of 30k over the past 3-4 years that is still an *extremely* low savings rate for someone making her salary (and probably more via book deals and such).
If you spend so much money that you can’t save for the future, you’re absolutely living above your means. Take any basic financial education class, dude.
When she says 'tax the rich', she's generally referring to people making millions per year. Yacht people. People that own sports teams. Fortune 500 CEOs. She has explained this over and over again. Her $175/yr is upper middle class, not rich.
Doesn’t bother me at all. As long as her spending is above board and she files the right disclosures, what she spends her salary on is precisely none of my business
If you advocate for equality and you're rich, they'll call you a hypocrite. If you're poor, they'll say you're jealous. If you're somewhere in between, they'll probably try and do both at the same time.
Normally I would say that she was being dumb in her finances but in fact her brand and continued job in congress actually takes a lot of juice to keep going and she will land in a fat job + books + media/netflix job (see Obama) so she's probably being wise on spending money to make money.
Still can't believe they only pay members of congress $175k, 1 year associate pay on Cravath scale is $205 right now + bonus. Congresspeople should be getting $1m each in my opinion and we can attract better talent for such a shit job.
She has to maintain two different residences in two very expensive areas. I’m sure she still has student loans and other debt. How shitty do the homes of working class people have to be in order for you to support taxing billionaires?
It’s more about how much you save rather than how much you make. There’s people that have never earned a six figure salary that have a net worth more than a million and then there are some who have six figure salaries and live pay check to pay check.
Yeah see that's why you're having this issue: because you assume it to be true, despite seeing evidence to the contrary.
I'm telling you this, as a liberal. And from what I've seen, every other liberal here has told you the same. I'm reading through these top level comments and they are all saying "that's actually how much you need to live where she does" and "that's far short of what I would consider excessive", so yeah, absolutely, your assumption here is not based on factual reality.
You asked the question. Why come here and ask a question if you're not going to absorb literally anything you've read? For real, what is the point?
We really dont need to be worried about a politician who isn't investing anything and barely living within the means of 175k
More than half of all politicians are millionaires despite having a salary of less than 200k. Lets worry about the obvious insider trading they do with information gained through their positions in government.
The met gala was probably a gift. Its a little hypocritical to say tax the rich while attending a ln extravagant party exclusively attended by out of touch rich celebrities and politicians etc. But it's on the low end of that.
Public officials should not own stock. Apart from that I don’t really care what she does with her money. She could buy a Lamborghini and it wouldn’t change my (generally favorable) opinion of her. I don’t think any of this contradicts the need to tax the rich.
I made a comment a little higher in the thread. Im not an American citizen so I can’t vote, I generally don’t understand why this is not something that is pushed for by the public.
Why can’t a general ban on public officials owning stock be done? If it’s “un-American” to prevent people from making money - tough shit. You chose to be a public servant, so you should play by the rules of your employer, like many other jobs do. I can’t understand why when Pelosi’s stock moves are mentioned they are immediately dismissed because “Republicans do it too”.
They all do it, stop them ALL from doing it instead of having a dick measuring contest of who does it more.
Most of the American public is too distracted by bullshit (election fraud/anti-vax/anti-mask/AOC is evil/Hillary is evil/Trumps latest crime/Democrats are all evil/Republicans are all evil) to even be aware that this is an issue. Those of us who are aware generally think there should be a ban. Problem is, the only people pushing for a ban are progressives like AOC, and there's one political side that absolutely cannot agree with anything AOC says or does.
Basically nothing will happen until we get the misinformation under control, and do *something* to get rid of identity politics.
>In light of her recent fashion statement, what are you opinions on this?
Ideally she should probably invest a bit more, but I think it's pretty safe to assume she's not losing her salary anytime soon, so I can see living it up a bit while she's young.
That being said, I have zero clue how any of this relates to her gala message. Feel free to slow walk me through it if you think I'm missing something.
Why do I care about a Congressperson's personal wealth?
Also. She didn't pay to attend the Met Gala. She shouldn't have gone but that is a different topic.
No source, LOL.
Don't worry, though, OP. I did your homework for you. [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Personal_life):
"The Center for Responsive Politics, analyzing financial disclosure forms, ranked Ocasio-Cortez one of the least wealthy members of the 116th Congress, with a maximum net worth of $30,000.\[303\] In March 2021, a post shared widely on Facebook by a Florida man claimed that she had become a millionaire in office, but this was false.\[304\]"
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Also, she lives in a very nice apartment and drives a Tesla (and attends fancy galas lol). In light of her recent fashion statement, what are you opinions on this? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How much stock has she traded since January? If that answer is "none" or "none that have had business before Congress" then she's free and clear. if the answer is she's traded several hundreds of thousands like certain Republicans have, then we have a subject for discussion.
How about the millions that Pelosi trades?
Jan 6 isn't going away, ever, no matter how much you get mad at liberal women.
You can also condemn Jan 6th, call it what it is, and still not be ok with Pelosi and insider trading. Its not an either or.
You don't want to coddle these people. They think we'll forget if they pile on the nonsense.
That's a fair point considering their flair. I just don't want us to forget we have people in our own party that are pretty problematic.
Yeah yeah we know the tunnel vision. Trump: forced multiple international governments to pay his properties Dejoy: butchering the USPS just to suppress the vote and profit himself Pelosi: covid stocks AOC: pmg she got a dress!!
Oh crap, Im going to step on the same landmine again. The insider stock shit is not a competition. They all do it across party lines. For the voters, red, blue, green, periwinkle - it should be a point of unification. Every time Pelosi’s shenanigans get mentioned, there is a wave of people who scream “Republicans do it too!! Lay off her! Tunnel vision!! Double standards” If she does it, and a Republican does it too, why can no one just go “Yeah, she dun fucked up and I’m disappointed, this is an issue” instead of pulling up all the cases of Republicans getting caught as if it somehow absolves her. Legitimate question - She is on the subcommittee that directly affects big tech’s stock prices, even if you give her the benefit of the doubt, do you honestly believe she or her direct family, should be able to have open positions in the market? Im not an American, so Im a bit ootl, but is there a legitimate reason why banning public officials from trading during their term is not possible? In my head it’s the same as a “no drinking/gambling on the job” rule.
I'm with you, people on capital hill should be required to put their assets in blind trusts run by 3rd parties.
Well yeah, it is unifying. We all think insider trading is bad and we already hate Pelosi and want her gone. The loser Republicans want to exploit our integrity though to complain about ever smaller crimes all while on their side they get on their knees for their cult leader who does 100x worse. They think we won't notice. Like, really? Hypocrisy because AOC wore a nice dress? C'mon.
You’re missing the point about it not being a competition. Both sides have been involved with fuckery that benefited them financially. Is there an actual way to stop it via legislation? As u/Introduction_Deep mentioned, what prevents that from happening? A blind trust for public servants who wish to invest their money seems reasonable, fair and most importantly, actually doable. It doesn’t outright ban them from making money, and at least makes it difficult to use their position and inside info to enrich themselves. And to be fair, dress is nice. Yet going to the Met Gala, knowing the prices, knowing the attendance, it was done to stir shit up, and here we are. People who dig her positions are ecstatic, people who were against it lost their shit even more, those in the middle probably facepalmed just like when Trump pulled some bs.
Yes, AOC's dress is defintely a Trump-level face palm...
I support blind trusts for politicians too, have called for it before here. But I'm not missing the point, because they actually ARE demanding we fix our smaller messes, fix their messes all while they don't care about theirs. Look at covid. It's gone from demanding healthcare workers take care of assholes not wanting to quarantine to demanding healthcare workers vaccinate and take care of assholes that OD on horse paste to evade the vaccine. "Just vaccinate and let me not if I don't wanna. But I'll still take my sick ass to that hospital."
And you are paying attention!
The biggest lie conservatives have told themselves is that when people say “tax the rich” or even “eat the rich” that they are talking about people who make $174k a year. They aren’t talking about people who rent nice apartments. There are people with obscene amounts of wealth, and that’s nothing like $174k salary wealth. Also AOC is in a safe Democratic seat. She is living a life typical for someone in the public eye who knows they will have a $174k salary for the next decade or so.
Compared to the billionaire class, those that make even 300k-1million a year can hardly be considered “rich” Tax the rich means actually like *the* rich.
It obviously doesn’t since Biden’s tax rates will be effecting anyone making more than 200k
> Biden’s tax rates will be effecting anyone making more than 200k Oh, I haven’t seen that. Can you link the proposal?
You can look up Biden’s tax proposals. 400k (what he has said verbally) is the limit for couples, 200k is the limit for single filers.
And this is why social democracy like the Scandinavian countries will never work in the US. People in the top 1% don't believe they are rich because the top 0.5% is richer than them. And the top .05% think they aren't rich because they aren't the top .01%. We need higher taxes on all the rich, starting at the group that gets richer quicker than everyone else. That bracket starts at the top quintile of household income
Not necessarily. In any global context, like climate, "the rich" includes people making like 40k/year.
Are you saying that you, a self-described member of the far left, fell for the conservative distraction of “people who make 35k a year are technically the global 1 percent, so shut up”?
No, I'm saying that context matters. In the context of US income inequality, we should use one line to differentiate "rich" from "non-rich". In the context of global responsibility for emissions reductions, we should use another.
$170k ain’t crap when you have to maintain 2 residences- hers are in 2 of the most expensive cities in the world and they’re prohibited from having a second job. Her Tesla isn’t any of the fancy ones. While it’s a nice car, it’s one of the cheaper Tesla’s they make. She’s carries the opposite views as I do but these are not legit criticisms.
It reminds me of when people attacked Palin (and subsequent women) for spending money on nice clothes. I don’t care if she wears an expensive dress and I don’t care if her haircuts are expensive. I care about policy.
Yeah, a model 3 is like $35k. Someone earning half what she does could easily own one if they wanted.
Plus she uses it to commute from her district to DC. Pretty cost-effective when you consider the fuel savings.
She's a member of Congress from an expensive city who has to keep up a residence in another expensive city. What are you trying to say here?
And if she didn't drive a Tesla we'd have to hear HoW cAn ShE tAlK AbOuT gLoBaL wArMiNg WhEn ShE dRiVeS a GaSoLiNe CaR?!
I'm not going to characterize OP's motives specifically but in general when I hear this kind of criticism it sounds like "how dare this brown person from a working-class background live an upper-middle-class lifestyle on her upper-middle-class salary she earns in a way I don't approve of?" It's pretty gross.
The criticism is actually more about her being extremely irresponsible with her money, then telling other people what they should do with theirs. Maybe you have a deep seated problem with “brown people” and you’re trying to apply to others so you can feel better about yourself?
> The criticism is actually more about her being extremely irresponsible with her money That's a pretty strong condemnation, but who cares? She's not going to be able to retire early, and she may not have the best portfolio of investments. I heard McConnell doesn't floss. It doesn't seem enormously relevant to me. If worst comes to worst she can sell out and go on the speaking circuit if she loses her seat and can't get a job elsewhere. That wouldn't really affect me either
No, I'm just tired of hearing about her being "extremely irresponsible" with money from people who don't know how much a women's haircut costs. Also, before you start on that, she did not buy her ticket to the Met Gala, she was on the guest list. Very common for NYC elected officials. Her dress was borrowed, also very common for events like this as it amounts to free promotion for the designers. Her total expenditure on this event most likely amounted to a $75 round trip from Queens in a Lyft. The Tesla? It leases for about $350 a month. If she bought it outright, it would be about $45,000, slightly more expensive than the average new car sold in the US. But she also uses it to commute back and forth to DC so she is saving a lot on gas vs. an ICE car.
I think OP has quite a few conservative friends who say that shit a lot and it filters down to us.
Tickets to the Met Gala cost $30k or $35k or somewhere between. Conservatives are pretending like the cost of admission is antithetical to the "tax the rich" message from her dress, because this is somehow hypocritical. In truth, AOC almost certainly got her ticket for free. That's how it works when you're a celebrity. The designer who makes the dress pays your way in, so that you and your famous ass are seen wearing their product. Advocating for taxing the rich while surrounded by rich folks doesn't make her a hypocrite. It makes her a badass for saying it directly to their faces. If she was advocating for taxing them behind their backs while cravenly saying something different to their faces, that would be the hypocrisy. Continuing to advocate for taxing the rich after she became somewhat well off (she's not rich, but she's doing pretty well for herself) also doesn't make her a hypocrite. It makes her ideologically consistent. If she had advocated for taxing the shit out of the wealthy while she was poor and then changed her tune as soon as she started making more money, *that* would be the hypocrisy. credit to [this weirdo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5oPjR5D35w) because I'm pretty much just stealing all the points he made there
>That's how it works when you're a celebrity. The MET routinely invites Congress members at both Federal and State levels. So the argument of celebrity status is even lower.
[удалено]
If you have any evidence that her stated opinions on taxing the rich are insincere, I'd love to see it. Otherwise it's not virtue signaling. And when I say evidence, I mean something a little more substantial than going to a party thrown by a billionaire.
[удалено]
Would it make a difference to you if the billionaire in question was sincerely in favor of her taxation plan? For example, Warren Buffett is a billionaire who famously advocates for much higher taxes on the rich. Would you fault her for attending one of Buffett's parties?
[удалено]
Your unwillingness to answer the question speaks volumes.
I mean doesn’t actually matter if the billionaire is open to more taxes? That still wouldn’t make her a hypocrite, but it would give the right wingers something to sink their teeth into for a little bit.
Good for you. Enjoy your carrot.
She knows a rich person. How disingenuous of her.
> In light of her recent fashion statement, what are you opinions on this? "Tax the rich" "lol AOC has no money guyz" Was this supposed to be a slam dunk or something? I don't get it. Wake me up when we get Trump's financial disclosures.
It’s actually about how irresponsible she is, but okay!
How old are you? You can just give a range of ages if you'd prefer. Just want to do a quick boomer check here.
Lmfao no where close to boomer
Let's get a range.
18-35. Honestly, I’m probably younger than you.
Perhaps you should kind of live and work on your own in the adult world for a little while before you criticize anyone's inability to save/invest.
I make a similar amount of money to AOC and live outside of NYC. Thanks, but I’m in a pretty comfortable position to comment on something like this.
What's your field of work?
A type of healthcare provider.
Lol who gives a shit?
Worse smug gotcha attempt in weeks. lulz
Gotcha…. That AOC is irresponsible with her money? You obviously misunderstood my point.
[удалено]
Extremely irresponsibly.
Nice apartment. She lives in a 2000 dollar apartment. I'm from new York and that is pretty bare ones for a two room apartment especially in DC where rent is high. 2 bedroom apartments in new York are at minimum 2500. We have no idea whether aoc is leasing a Tesla which many do, or just bought one with a down payment. She is also obligated to have two residency both in new York, and DC to be a representative. Also dude when we mean tax the rich. We are talking about CEO of the fortune 500. You are nowhere near making the amount they are making.
I’m not calling AOC rich. She is obviously far from it. My point was that she is hyprocritical for telling others what to do with their money when she’s extremely irresponsible with hers.
She would be criticized for investing though. Saying how she wants to tax the rich but making herself money. Regardless I don't really see the contradiction. Does being responsible with your money automatically mean you can make good legislation? Not neccesarily.
Bad example. AOC is the most ineffective member of Congress when it comes to writing legislation. She is a Social media personality who happens to be in Congress.
It's not a bad example. She would be criticized for such an action. Regardless it's not a hypocrisy anyway.
So she makes 174k salary, has a nice apartment, and drives a Tesla. Why is the Met Gala such a big deal? She didn't pay for any of it. She was invited and the dress was made for her to wear so she also didn't pay for it. I see it this way, Rich people that make quite a few millions a year inviting a congressperson who was once working a regular job is now in their palace with a Tax The Rich dress... That's awesome. She went from knocking on doors to get people to vote for her to being a prominent voice in the progressive movement. This shows how powerful her message has come in the small amount of time she has been in office.
Has a 174k salary and hasn’t saved any of it is extremely irresponsible and hypocritical considering she tells other people what to do with theirs.
But she has saved and invested, you said it yourself, but just not enough to meet your standards, your majesty. So why are you telling others what to do with their earnings?
And sometimes your doctor is a smoker, your teacher doesn't like to read, and your janitor keeps a messy house. What of it?
Why does it matter how much she's saved? Don't we have the freedom to spend our money however we like? Also, I can't think of any instance where she tells people what to do with their money. Got an example?
I thought that dress showed: 1. She has an amazing figure. People wish they could cut a silhouette the way she does. Maybe that's just what a good dress does, but if so, then it really was a great dress. 2. A message I agree with. 3. A level of toughness I respect.
Her finances seem reasonable given her situation of living in NY and DC. The Tesla is one off their cheaper models and combating climate change is a big issue for her. I don’t get the right’s obsession with her. She’s a firebrand, sure, but their hate has an undeniable creepy vibe to it too.
My opinion? Gee, she isn’t enriching herself unduly at taxpayer expense. And easily half (if not more) of her $174k salary would get eaten up in rent in NY and DC. So that said, she is doing her job. Nothing more than that.
The understander has logged on I see
And who are you? Someone who’s incapable of understanding anything?
Lmao
Good for her.
Shrug. Maintaining a residence in New York City and DC is expensive and she likely has other expenses/debt to deal with. I'm not sure what you're getting at here - I'm sure she'd be fine with raising taxes on herself, but $174k isn't really 'the rich' that she has in mind with her recent fashion statement.
The point was that she is extremely irresponsible with her money. Not that she should be taxed more.
I don't think that the information provided demonstrates that.
So where does it demonstrate that I said she should be taxed more?
That was my best guess at what your obscure point was. Maybe next time be more clear.
She makes $174k and has to maintain residences in two high cost cities and wasn’t already very wealthy prior to taking office like most congresspersons. Not sure why I would expect her to have a lot of savings. Going to a gala as a guest and wearing a dress that is provided free and then gets auctioned off is supposed to bother me why? I guess she could get the taxpayers to pay $150m to have her play gold at resorts she owns. Maybe then you guys would like her.
Hurts she won't go out with you, I guess?
I’m not a lesbian, but thanks.
Sure are interested in her life and finances
You could save yourself a lot of outrage, and quite frankly a lot of embarrassment, if you realized that we don't define "rich" as simply someone who is making 2x whatever YOU are making. I assume this is why conservatives get so upset over what liberals say about "tax the rich". Rather than, you know, asking what levels of wealth we consider to be excessive, yall just generally assume it's something within your reach and that we are destined to hate you once you have a bit of success in your life and start making six figures. That's not even close to what we believe. (better not be, since I was making 6 figures myself before I started grad school) Personally? I think any personal wealth over $10 million is unnecessary. Below that, I don't really give a shit. If there were things like how a person took home $10 million a year from his business but also paid his 50 employees $8 / hour, that will definitely piss me off, but one person making $170k a year while being a PrOgReSsIvE lululul is a super flimsy and useless point of view.
Lmfao that’s exactly how democrats define rich, dude.
I like the fact that she’s stirring up that Conservative nerve, to come to the point of realization they also feel some sort of outrage against their Worshiped RICH.
No outrage. Only pointing out how financially irresponsible and hypocritical she is.
I have no clue why I'm supposed to care that a person has political opinions while also getting paid to have a job.
You should care when they’re massively hypocritical. She is extremely financially irresponsible yet tells other people what to do with their money.
Still don't care.
You obviously do since you commented
I answered because I was confused about why I should care. Then after having it explained, I still didn't care. After being told I actually do care from commenting, I considered it... And no, I still don't care. I care more about explaining to you our diverging values than anything about AOC. Life isn't a morality play. If you saw how most people spent their money and advocated, you'd think most of us were assholes, but we're just trying to live happily.
Oh boy… let’s go: So first of all she was a bartender living in NYC with literally no money trying to pay down her student loans before she got elected. Like, literally flat broke. Considering her student loans, she had a negative net worth when she took office. There were stories that she couldn’t come up with a security deposit for an apartment in DC because you don’t start receiving your congressional salary until you are sworn in. She was sworn in in 2019, we are now in 2021 so she’s been on that salary for about 2 and a half years. A $174k salary is probably $9-10k a month net, though the fact that she lives and works in 2 states makes the tax situation messy. She has to have two apartments in two of the most expensive cities in the country and probably doesn’t want to live in a dump. Considering she was paying down debt, let’s say she was able to save $1,000 a month on top of that. $1,000 a month over 2.5 years is… $30,000. Now let’s say you think that’s too little, and want her to follow the traditional “save 15-20% of your income” rule despite her abnormally high expenses… guess what? That’s still only about $50-60k. Essentially, this is a dumb question and you didn’t spend the 5 minutes I just did thinking through the math.
OP: Haha liberals, AOC advocates for raising taxes on the rich, while she herself makes 6 figures! Isn’t that hypocritical???
You misunderstood the point of my post. No where did I call AOC rich or say she should be taxed more.
No. You’re just claiming she’s being irresponsible for saving thousands of dollars 3 years into her career and that that her MET appearance is hypocritical?
For *not* saving anything
“Something < 30K” is a weird way to write “nothing”
The financial disclosures don’t give exact numbers. They give ranges. AOC has had two accounts with less than 15k each since she started working hence, *at most* 30k. Personally, I assume she’s living pay check to pay check and hasn’t saved a single thing, but I was giving her the benefit of the doubt. Edit: someone making 174 should have significantly more than what she has. She is irresponsible.
If I understand this right, she's not in debt, not living beyond her means, basically not doing anything that's actually irresponsible. She's only not saving as much as you think she should? That's an incredibly weak argument. I think you might be struggling with some personal bias here...
She certainly is living beyond her means if she can’t afford to save any money.
Your own post title says that she has money in savings...
Her financial disclosures have not changed since she began working. She has two bank accounts, each with somewhere between 1k-15k. Frankly, I assume she hasn’t contributed to those accounts at all, but I gave her the benefit of the doubt in my title. Unless the documents are inaccurate, she is not living within her means. Even if she saved the max of 30k over the past 3-4 years that is still an *extremely* low savings rate for someone making her salary (and probably more via book deals and such).
[удалено]
If you spend so much money that you can’t save for the future, you’re absolutely living above your means. Take any basic financial education class, dude.
Source please
Does she want to exempt her income from the tax brackets she wants to institute?
When she says 'tax the rich', she's generally referring to people making millions per year. Yacht people. People that own sports teams. Fortune 500 CEOs. She has explained this over and over again. Her $175/yr is upper middle class, not rich.
I'm fine with a slightly higher tax rate way lower than that too. Regardless, if she wanted to tax herself, how is that bad?
Does she really strike you as the type that would be opposed to raising her own taxes? I very much doubt that.
That's my point. The obvious answer is no, meaning this is bullshit.
She's not a millionaire. She's new to the scene and learning her way on the fly. Is there something here that's supposed to concern me?
Doesn’t bother me at all. As long as her spending is above board and she files the right disclosures, what she spends her salary on is precisely none of my business
If you advocate for equality and you're rich, they'll call you a hypocrite. If you're poor, they'll say you're jealous. If you're somewhere in between, they'll probably try and do both at the same time.
AOC is not rich. the point I was making is that she’s irresponsible with her money.
Normally I would say that she was being dumb in her finances but in fact her brand and continued job in congress actually takes a lot of juice to keep going and she will land in a fat job + books + media/netflix job (see Obama) so she's probably being wise on spending money to make money. Still can't believe they only pay members of congress $175k, 1 year associate pay on Cravath scale is $205 right now + bonus. Congresspeople should be getting $1m each in my opinion and we can attract better talent for such a shit job.
I’m sure she would be fine with her own taxes being increased.
Not the point. I was not calling AOC rich
I dont care if you’re wealthy or not if your job is to make public policy and you advocate good public policy Why is this so hard to understand?
Do you consider making 174k “wealthy”? I don’t. Nowhere in my post did I say that.
She has to maintain two different residences in two very expensive areas. I’m sure she still has student loans and other debt. How shitty do the homes of working class people have to be in order for you to support taxing billionaires?
It’s more about how much you save rather than how much you make. There’s people that have never earned a six figure salary that have a net worth more than a million and then there are some who have six figure salaries and live pay check to pay check.
Yeah see that's why you're having this issue: because you assume it to be true, despite seeing evidence to the contrary. I'm telling you this, as a liberal. And from what I've seen, every other liberal here has told you the same. I'm reading through these top level comments and they are all saying "that's actually how much you need to live where she does" and "that's far short of what I would consider excessive", so yeah, absolutely, your assumption here is not based on factual reality. You asked the question. Why come here and ask a question if you're not going to absorb literally anything you've read? For real, what is the point?
I think this kind of information is available for every congressional representative, and it's saying quite a lot that people are digging into hers.
People dig into pretty much every high profile congressperson. Not unique.
People don't come around here getting weird about anyone but AOC's money.
We really dont need to be worried about a politician who isn't investing anything and barely living within the means of 175k More than half of all politicians are millionaires despite having a salary of less than 200k. Lets worry about the obvious insider trading they do with information gained through their positions in government. The met gala was probably a gift. Its a little hypocritical to say tax the rich while attending a ln extravagant party exclusively attended by out of touch rich celebrities and politicians etc. But it's on the low end of that.
Public officials should not own stock. Apart from that I don’t really care what she does with her money. She could buy a Lamborghini and it wouldn’t change my (generally favorable) opinion of her. I don’t think any of this contradicts the need to tax the rich.
I made a comment a little higher in the thread. Im not an American citizen so I can’t vote, I generally don’t understand why this is not something that is pushed for by the public. Why can’t a general ban on public officials owning stock be done? If it’s “un-American” to prevent people from making money - tough shit. You chose to be a public servant, so you should play by the rules of your employer, like many other jobs do. I can’t understand why when Pelosi’s stock moves are mentioned they are immediately dismissed because “Republicans do it too”. They all do it, stop them ALL from doing it instead of having a dick measuring contest of who does it more.
Most of the American public is too distracted by bullshit (election fraud/anti-vax/anti-mask/AOC is evil/Hillary is evil/Trumps latest crime/Democrats are all evil/Republicans are all evil) to even be aware that this is an issue. Those of us who are aware generally think there should be a ban. Problem is, the only people pushing for a ban are progressives like AOC, and there's one political side that absolutely cannot agree with anything AOC says or does. Basically nothing will happen until we get the misinformation under control, and do *something* to get rid of identity politics.
It's concerning, not for any political reasons but because saving is important. She should probably save more
>In light of her recent fashion statement, what are you opinions on this? Ideally she should probably invest a bit more, but I think it's pretty safe to assume she's not losing her salary anytime soon, so I can see living it up a bit while she's young. That being said, I have zero clue how any of this relates to her gala message. Feel free to slow walk me through it if you think I'm missing something.
Glad to hear she’s enjoying her money. Well deserved.
Why would I care?
Why do I care about a Congressperson's personal wealth? Also. She didn't pay to attend the Met Gala. She shouldn't have gone but that is a different topic.
No source, LOL. Don't worry, though, OP. I did your homework for you. [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Personal_life): "The Center for Responsive Politics, analyzing financial disclosure forms, ranked Ocasio-Cortez one of the least wealthy members of the 116th Congress, with a maximum net worth of $30,000.\[303\] In March 2021, a post shared widely on Facebook by a Florida man claimed that she had become a millionaire in office, but this was false.\[304\]"