AOC in a ‘Tax the Rich’ Dress at the Met Gala is One of the Most Ironic Things in 2021
Someone inform AOC that the rich are taxed! I’m so sick of this narrative.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drives a Tesla. She makes six figures. She lives above a Whole Foods.
AOC is rich. The Democratic Socialist (aka SOCIALIST) wore a “Tax the Rich” dress to the Met Gala of all places!
The interview is mind-numbing. AOC and the designer decided to go with “what it means to be working-class women of color at the Met.”
The Met Gala! The party that hosts the richest and most entitled people. These people are worth millions.
A ticket is $35,000. A table is at least $300,000. The dress cost at least $25,000.
This woman is the poster child for tone-deafness.
WATCH @AOC speaks about her dress tonight: pic.twitter.com/qIGecrBevv
— Henry Rodgers (@henryrodgersdc) September 14, 2021
Lady, the rich are taxed. Big corporations are taxed. They have amazing accountants who know all the deductions they can take in the tax code.
No one cheats. No one lies. It’s all in the tax code. If you want them to pay the full amount then strip the tax code and get rid of the deductions and write-offs.
It’s also a gaudy dress.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
A veritable Marie Antoinette “Let them Eat Cake” moment.
Nope not really , it’s money earned from her own efforts not by exploiting others. Unlike many rich folk and the corporate types. The entire point is that the tax rate and the number of exceptions for corporations in the US is exceptionally low and mostly as a result of lobbying as opposed to actually having good reasons for low tax. I mean take DTs tax reform it was supposed to make money but instead cost huge sums of money
Given the placement of that message, isn’t that more like, “Tax the rich, my a**”?
Tax all the rich .. . except my ass.
Almost looks like Ax the Bich…
That’s rich.
Heh.
Bwaahaha!
They spelled rich wrong.
I don’t believe for a second that she was unaware of the “irony.” It’s much more likely that she was intentionally rubbing people’s faces in it.
she believes (possibly correctly) that her constituents are stupid enough to vote for her anyway.
Her constituents vote for her due to surname.
A large segment of NYC’s population votes for Schumer for “ethnic” reasons.
Her surname is (D).
I disagree re: “rubbing people’s faces in it.”
“Tax the rich” is the sly lie with the subtle chuckle; she didn’t have the bollo—, er, botox to flash the *actually* confrontational “Eat the rich.” (Note: I’ve written that elsewhere.)
The gala-class shout, “Yes! More taxes!” (that’s the lie) because they know that any actual increase (because loopholes) will be minor; the virtue signaling, priceless (that’s the chuckle).
So, fine: The “irony” amused her; however, she likely is blind to the lie, perhaps willfully, perhaps cogno-dissonantly.
any actual increase will be minor for them because they have the money to pay attorneys and CPAs to thread all those “loopholes”.
Classless. Stupid. Useless. At least she is consistent.
What a charming ‘young lady’.
Lady? Surely you jest.
.
If you took her picture standing next to a tramp you wouldn’t get a photo of lady and the tramp—it would just be two tramps.
Tax the rich doesn’t really mean tax the rich or the rich wouldn’t be democrats. duh!
As pointed out at Citizen Free Press: who wears [the style] better? AOC or Chick Fil A?
Beyond clueless.
So much to say here, but I must narrow it down. Yes the hypocrisy. But I want to address the corruption. How much does AOC make? $174,000?
How does she afford a $30 – $50k per person party? And then a designer dress?
Some brought her as a guest or they waived all or a substantial amount of the ticket? Either way, or some other way, you get the drift – she was given something of great value because she is a member of congress.
And instead of saying, “No thankyou, I could not otherwise afford this,” she accepts. There are three possibilities. One is she is so morally vacant, she does not honestly see the problem. Second, she see’s the problem, but wants to attend in any event, and so accepts the benefit. Third, she has come to the conclusion she is so “all that,” that she deserves the perk – that it is right and proper she be offered the ticket and that she should be there to rub elbows with the woke elite hypocrites of New York.
She wears the designer “Tax the Rich” dress (which looks like a Chick-fil-a bag) to attempt to salvage her hypocrisy, only to make it worse, but she just took a bribe and owes people things, She is corrupt.
I predict, like Joe Biden, after decades of “public service” (in this instance I am using “service” in a carnal sense as in a public whore) she will parlay that $174,000 per year into a great fortune.
Not bad for an imbecilic bartender from the Bronx. A veritable American success story, don’t you think?
all dresses were donated by designers to be auctioned off (if I read correctly) and anna wintour donated tickets to many people.
so the ticket donation may be a problem but nothing will be done.
The “gift” of the dress and the ducat are taxable income to AOC. I hope she doesn’t forget to include them on her 1040.
No, they are not income. Didn’t you see just above that the dress is to be auctioned off? She just got to wear it for the evening, and that’s not income. And the ticket has no significant value; all but about $50 of the price is a tax-deductible donation.
Not OK for Nancy Reagan. . .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1988/11/01/nancy-reagans-borrowed-wardrobe-puts-the-irs-in-an-embarrassing-position/a7ec133e-408f-40f9-a35a-61ce2806526c/
How long did Mrs Reagan borrow the dresses for? In any case, I think that story was BS. She didn’t end up paying any taxes did she? If there was any substance to it they would have made her.
The idea that letting someone wear a dress is an “interest free loan” is total BS. This isn’t money. If you borrow someone’s car are you supposed to report it as an “interest-free loan” for one day of the car’s value?! That’s ridiculous. Or should you report it as the cost of a rental?! Of course not. The car isn’t for hire, and nor is AOC’s dress, or Mrs Reagan’s.
As the article says, the dress was to be auctioned. Her wearing it probably added value to it. Especially in this case, where it was an ugly rag worth nothing before, but now it’s something a celebrity wore, so the kind of rich idiot who admires her might bid some ridiculous amount for it.
“The idea that letting someone wear a dress is an “interest free loan” is total BS.”
It’s the reason for the “loan.” As a gift, that is, I have no expectation for anything in return for that loan, it’s not taxable. If there is some other rationale, like a quid-pro-quo, it’s taxable.
For example, if I give you use of a car to promote my line of cars or dealership, and you accept this car, it’s taxable. In the same way, if I give AOC a dress to promote my line of dresses or my talents as a designer, and she accepts it, it is also taxable.
What becomes of the dress afterwards is immaterial.
In this case, it seems material that the dress was given to her and then to auction. It was given to her obviously to showcase it for the designer, and was therefore not a gift to AOC as there was an expected return for the giving her the dress. The designer could have paid AOC some sort of fee for wearing it, but did not. AOC could have asked for remuneration for wearing the dress, but did not. She wanted a designer dress to call attention to herself, a dress she would have to had otherwise pay for, so she also saw value in the transaction. Such designer dresses are “one-time” wears. The auction price is the imputed value after its depreciation due to wear by AOC. The value to AOC, therefore, is higher. Looking at depreciation tables, likely 4 times higher.
Do we have a tax lawyer in the house?
If she was given the dress then yes; but she wasn’t given it. She wore it and then it was auctioned. She didn’t donate it to the auction; it was never hers in the first place. If she’d been paid to wear it then that payment would be income, but the wearing of the dress would still not be.
And its value after she wore it was very likely higher than before she wore it. Who would have bid on it if she hadn’t worn it? People bid crazy amounts of money at charity auctions, for all kinds of junk; that’s how they make money. But they pay more for “a brush with fame”.
“…likely higher than before she wore it.”
Typo. You forgot the “h”.
That does not look like a Chick-Fil-A bag!
It looks much more like a Dr Seuss illustration……
“There are three possibilities”
A fourth possibility: It really was a chick-fil-a bag.
Who payed for her ticket?
Tax implications?
Campaign contribution implications?
Neither one. It has no significant value. (And it wasn’t given to her campaign.)
No significant value? A $30,000 admittance fee? Free entrance to that venue full of “grand people”? Yeah, there’s significant value there.
Agreed – it has significant value. Weather proceeds were to go to charity is immaterial. The value of a ticket was $30 – $50k. That she was given a $30 – $50k ticket but made no actual associated tax-deductible donation for it is a problem and can rightly be imputed as income. If she wants to avoid the income, she needs to make a $29,950 – $49,950 donation to charity.
Not really it was a. Event independent of any campaigning. Besides if you are going down that path then I’d like to see an apology for four years of Trump making money off of the presidency. Now that’s hypocrisy, especially given AOC was wearing the dress for one night.
You are wrong. Tickets to these events have no significant value. That’s why if you pay $30K for a ticket you get to deduct all but about $50 as a donation. Your receipt will state the actual value, which is the part you can’t deduct. If the ticket were actually worth $30K then it would not be deductible at all.
Therefore someone who was comped a ticket received at most $50 of value, which is de minimis and not reportable. That is how it works.
“That’s why if you pay $30K for a ticket you get to deduct all but about $50 as a donation.”
No – you do not get to deduct something because it has no value, you get to deduct it because it went to a charity.
Of course I get what you are saying, and am being rather sophist, but the problem is not everyone is entitled to that $29,950 t0 $49,950 discount. And who gets that discount? People who can provide value to the person or entity providing that discount. The discount is dependent upon, in this case, a quid pro. She is given the discount to buy access to her at very little cost. She took the discount to promote herself. It is moral corruption for sure, and it is arguably taxable.
If they go after people for failure to sign obscure federal forms, or telling the truth about lawful conversations, why not this? The law must be rigorously and strictly applied, after all. You yourself pointed out that some dope who made an internet movie in apparent violation of a parole agreement HAD to be jailed once the feds found out about it because someone needed to be blamed other than Hillary Clinton for a fiasco in a foreign country, I mean, there was no discretion or leeway, right?
And these charges of a quid-pro-quo are so important, don’t you think they deserve an in-depth investigation of AOC, and everyone involved in this ticket-for-play scheme, and those associated with those people, and every crime any of these people may have committed?
Or do I misunderstand the current standard of justice in this country?
No, BSR, you still don’t seem to get it. The reason people who pay $30K for a ticket get to deduct $29,950 from their taxable income is that the ticket is only worth $50. The $29,950 that they overpaid for it is a donation. Therefore someone who is given a free ticket has only received $50 of value. If the ticket’s value were higher then the deduction allowed to ticket-buyers would be lower.
And the intangible value of getting to hang out with all these glamorous people doesn’t count. Just as the cost of renting a pew at a church, or of reserved seats at a synagogue, is fully deductible, because the intangible value of having somewhere to sit during services doesn’t count. I don’t know about churches, but synagogues traditionally raise money by auctioning off certain honors, such as the privilege of reading from the Torah scroll, or opening the ark, etc. People of means bid large amounts for these, but as far as the tax code is concerned they get nothing of value in return and can deduct the whole thing.
For that matter some synagogues auction off the privilege of paying the power bill for a month; you get a plaque put up with your name on it, so people will know whom to thank for the lights being on. Again, fully deductible, because the value received, whether in terms of spiritual satisfaction or of goodwill and respect from people, doesn’t count.
No, as usual, you are counting the leaves when I’m talking about the forest.
Yes, they have significant value. It might not be monetary, but there’s value.
If you deny that then I’ll know you’re just being contrary.
This miserable, dim-witted, pathological narcissist, demagogue twit just bought herself a Tesla — a $60,000 to $75,000 toy for wealthy, self-congratulatory Dhimmi-crats who want to put on a self-aggrandizing charade about how they’re allegedly “saving” the environment with their vehicle choice (they’re not). Of course, this toy was paid for by U.S. taxpayers, as is the vile Occasional-Cortex’s generous, six-figure salary of ~$177,000, annually — a sum that this idiot would never make in the private sector, due to her lack of intelligence, her lazy work ethic and her narcissism. Hence, why she ran for office.
The left is just impervious to Irony.
This is true. The ability to perceive (and enjoy) irony is dependent on being able to detect it in the first place. The left has ensured that at least two generations of Americans are too stupid and too joyless to understand irony (or even to know what it is, after all, they have using your own feces to create social justice signs classes to attend).
It also requires the ability to see reality. Yeah, not this bunch.
Irony is when the left attacks Trump for being mentally deficient and then they pick Biden. Everything they complained about Trump which was false is true about Biden.
It’s not ironic though, the dress was loaned then auctioned. As for the ticket price that was probably waived or paid for by others. So really the position is she got a free shot at making a political statement. If she owned the dress and bought her way into the event you might have a point but on at least one of those aspects you are plain wrong.
You have to stand awed at the Dhimmi-crats’ brazen and transparent hypocrisy, when it comes to wealth. Everyone recall vile narcissist-incompetent Obama’s sanctimonious lecturing and posturing? “At a certain point, I think you’ve made enough money;” “You didn’t build that; someone else made that happen;” “I believe in spreading the wealth around.” None of this stopped Obama from reaping obscene amounts of lucre from the very private sector entrepreneurialism and free market innovation that he constantly denigrated. Apparently, Obama still doesn’t have “enough money,” even with a net worth of close to $200 million in undeserved, filthy lucre.
Watch Occasional-Cortex follow the same path as Obama, with wealth flowing from book deals, speaking fees, media deals, etc. This vile, empty-suit, dumb-as-rocks narcissist will very soon possess undeserved wealth that places her above the net worth of actual hard workers and business owners in the private sector; people who create economic value and wealth the old-fashioned way — by busting their tails and by producing goods and services of value.
Egad, every time I see numbers like that….
With $200 million, I could pay off all my debts, buy a couple of nice brand new cars, build a nice new house where I want for cash, and still have enough left to give $100,00 a year to charity/church and live on the rest for 1200 years without any income whatsoever.
BTW, that’s not envy. But I just look at those folks and ponder again that wealth is wasted on the wealthy as youth is wasted on the young.
I get you. The good news is that you, me, everyone, can live very, very well with far less. There’s a great proverb from the Talmud, or, Pirkei Avot (Chapters of the Fathers), I believe. I paraphrase, but, it goes something like this: “Who is wealthy? He who is satisfied with his lot.” That’s wisdom, right there.
https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.4?lang=bi
On top of which Obama owns a mansion right on the coast, despite claiming that “global warming” will cause the seas to rise and swamp the coastal areas. It’s not what you say, it’s what you do that tells me what your true beliefs are–or aren’t.
The sheeple seem to love slogans like ‘Tax the Rich’ while AOC is busy virtue signaling while hobnobbing with the rich and enriching herself. A more meaningful slogan would be ‘Congress, stop wasting tax payer money on stupid projects.’
Did anyone else look at AOC dress and instantly think Cruella Deville?
Didn’t pay any attention to the dress. Looked at her face and instantly though of a milk cow.
In that dress, I thought of a billboard cow.
“ƎAT MOAR ЯICH!”
I will never understand the war on corporations. They are owned by people, frequently lots of people, frequently people who invest in the corporations through mutual funds and retirement plans. Profits they earn are subject to double taxation when the profits are paid out to shareholders. So a marginal tax rate of, e.g., 25% on corporate profits can easily translate into a much higher effective tax rate when dividends are paid or when taxes are paid by shareholders on capital gains. The war on corporations is a war on capitalism, plain and simple.
That’s not quite the whole story though. How many individual direct investors vote their shares? How many investors who use mutual funds or ETF vote their shares? You are equating small mom and pop investors with control. These small fry do not have influence much less control of corporate policies, not even close.
Double taxation I grant you. The easiest way forward is to eliminate the corporate tax structure. No corporate tax eliminates double taxation. It would also eliminate lobbying and influence peddling related to corporate tax policy. Best of all it would allow healthcare to be addressed on an equal footing. Currently those with very good corporate provided healthcare are largely unaffected by the distortion from Obamacare. Remove tax deduction for health insurance and then theirs a much more equal playing field among small and large employers.
Finally the current tax revenue from corporations would have to be raised from increased individual taxes. IMO, that’s a fantastic goal. People, as consumers, already pay this but it’s largely a hidden tax. This way it forces people to view the obscene level of total taxation because it will come from them directly v indirectly.
Why the focus on individual direct investors? The vast majority of individual shareholders are indirect, as Stuytown says. “People who invest in the corporations through mutual funds and retirement plans.” And those shares definitely get voted.
I addressed both direct and indirect investors in my post. Indirect investors routinely either assign their vote to a proxy or don’t vote at all; the takeaway is that many small shareholders do not personally vote their shares. Pension funds, institutional investors and other large shareholders definitely do vote.
The true focus of my post was removing the corporate tax entirely.
They are paying the full amount. The deductions and write-offs are all either the genuine cost of earning their income, and thus it would be wrong not to let them be deducted, or else they are payment for doing things we (the public, that is) want them to do but are not worth it to them without an incentive.
Roughly analogous to putting a “Kick Me” sign on her back/butt.
Duhhhhhhhhhh
Hmmmm, $30K for the opportunity to do that? Let me get back to you.
As a Met member for many years, I hate that this gala has become an opportunity for these vulgar people to show up and denigrate a great institution.
The lowly servants were, of course, wearing masks but the “sophisticated” like AOC were not. They’re so drearily predictable.
At this point, if Dhimmi-crat voters aren’t smart enough to figure out that all of the prominent Dhimmi-crats who constantly sermonize and lecture the citizenry about the alleged evils of corporations, the “wealthy,” “millionaires and billionaires” (note that the dim-witted, fiscally illiterate Dhimmi-crats put millionaires in the same sentence as billionaires, even though members of the latter group are, at a minimum, one thousand times wealthier than a millionaire), etc. — crone Pelosi, Comrade Sanders, Occasional Cortex, Fauxcahontas, narcissist-incompetent, Obama, et al. — are all fabulously wealthy hypocrites, engaged in a self-serving, self-enriching hustle, as consummate hustlers, there’s really no hope for them.
Progressive prices and availability. Tax the rich, indeed.
“Ask the bitch” Pro-Life message? Baby Lives Matter
A O-C wearing her Marxism on her ass, it fits her.
“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drives a Tesla. She makes six figures. She lives above a Whole Foods.”
We lived among the people.
I think you say, convenience store.
We lived above it.
I mean it like it is… like it sounds.
I too have been touched by the devilish one.
Tattoo on the left shoulder…
Oh, but when I saw the face of God, I was changed.
I took the entire arm off.
AOC,
You are in your second term
You have not introduced legislation to tax the rich.
You have not defined “rich”.
You have not defined how much tax they should be paying
Wearing someone else’s clothing with a mindlessly vague slogan on the back is no substitute for your inaction.