Yeah, except your friends only want to do certain parts of that. They just tell you the rest so you'll believe them. If you were to put them to the test you'd be able to see through them.Originally Posted by thethe
Yeah, except your friends only want to do certain parts of that. They just tell you the rest so you'll believe them. If you were to put them to the test you'd be able to see through them.
I’m well aware that my ideology differentiates from lots of republicans. I’m very comfortable with that.
Natural Immunity Croc
Jaw (03-17-2021)
multiple bike lanes are a thing, what is the problem there ?
In our city they are very functional where many people bike to and from work and use them on weekends for recreation
My fear is we allow our selves under the guise of responsible spending to wind up living in 1960's Soviet bloc world where only basic function is funded
and we agree it should be non partisan, but everybody got an idea
////
If you and I were crafting an infrastructure bill of the ho hum bridges and access roads etc and I was steadfast on bike lanes, what would be your counter offer?
Of course there would be tax increases to fund
/////
My infrastructure bill would also contain art on city walls , gardens in public areas and other quality of life expenditures
Key there is quality of life. It does say after all, Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing about fiscal responsibility
Last edited by 57Brave; 03-02-2021 at 08:13 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
The dems are passing a relief bill that is 1,000% of Jeff Bezos entire net worth,and that is resulting in $1,400 for adults who make less than $80k.
But somehow unconstitutionally raising taxes on a few billionaires is gonna make the government efficient and make a difference for anyone?
No. But I think it's generally unhealthy for a relative few to have as much power as vast wealth grants people in the modern world. That's why I would like to couple it with a PAC tax. The PAC tax would take some of the political power away, but the same people would still have access to power via media and tech companies, or many other avenues. Taxing overall wealth essentially makes it harder for incompetent billionaires to hang on to that power long term. Those who are left will at least have been among the fittest.
I also think it will remove some of the incentive to treat employees like they're just a number because the super tax will effectively cap individual earnings. It will be more sound to build for stability than to maximize profits.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
What is unconstitutional about raising the taxes of billionaires?
Gas prices skyrocketing
Market tanking
But he tweeted mean things!!
Natural Immunity Croc
You must fit into this box!!
Commies still fall for this. Anti data losers who need others to support them
Sorry dude, to each his own but Stossel's a dick.
The wealth gap is caused by fed intervention via zero interest rate and unlimited liquidity in markets. It makes the rich richer and the poorer.
Raising taxes does nothing for this. It simply gives the worst beaurocracy in the world more funds to enrich itself. We should work to reduce spending and government regulation everywhere to help people at the bottom
After seeing how large corporations and the wealthy backed BLM and other Democrat causes I couldn’t care less about what happens with their wealth.
Natural Immunity Croc
Little thethe is turning into a commie before our eyes. I honestly did not see this one coming. Donalds landslide loss must have really broke him.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Yeah you're still demanding school from home. Right?
Give me stossell
Well first you can have Stossel, but when did I demand school from home? I get up and go to work every day and teach my classes. My "face to face classes" are taught from my office via Ring (we switched from Zoom) because I teach to 3 different campus sites, plus from my office computer I have access to more of my teaching materials and resources.
Just for the record I don't care for Stossel because he represents much of what I hate about Fox and/or Talk Radio. Their only solution for anything is to keep doing what we've been doing, you know the stuff that got us into this mess, and the only thing they're passionate about (him included) is taking a great big dump on anyone who wants to try something different. He may or may not be right about Bernie and AOC but since he doesn't offer a plausible alternative, just blind, negative, partisan, animosity building vitriol, meant to get the viewers to get drunk on their BS. Just my opinion though. Like I said, you can have him. Lord knows I won't miss him.
goldfly (03-05-2021)
I like this lady
I liked her explanation. About how it should be a separate piece of legislation. I could be wrong but it seemed to be a principled stand about how the Senate should operate. If that's true then it's a breath of fresh air in a chamber dominated all too often by achieving an end by whatever means.
Why not raise taxes on just Jews? Just Latinos? Signaling a group out is a form of discrimination
Groups are singled out all the time by the government, especially for taxation. People with children get a tax credit that is denied to people without children. People who are paying mortgages or student loans have more tax deductions. People who by cigarettes are taxed more.
You could go into other areas too. There are subsidies that are only available to farmers. Blind people are denied drivers licenses. Young people are denied Social Security.
The government is not required to treat everyone equally. It is understood that not everyone is in the same situation and so the government's actions must be able to be varied to address different circumstances. The groups you listed (Jews and Latinos) are known as "suspect classes." Generally there are four suspect classes: race, religion, national origin, and alienage. Laws discriminating based on these are subjected to strict scrutiny. You can still have laws that discriminate based on a suspect class but you have to prove they are narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest.
Discrimination based on other classifications receive different levels of scrutiny. Most often it's simply rational basis. This means if the government can articulate a rational basis for the law, it's valid.
So a tax on billionaires would certainly be subjected to the rational basis standard. Since the government can articulate a rational basis (billionaires are more able to shoulder a tax burden) it would be valid.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote