Seems to be the last thing we should be doing is taxing people with no money. If only there was a solution to solve money issues... maybe taxing people that have excess money even more or something?
If all we wanted to do was shore up the social safety nets, we don't even really need to raise taxes on anyone. The federal government can finance that, easily, with deficit spending.
The real point of raising taxes on the rich is political- when a small group of elites controls 40% of the total wealth, that just gives them way too much power over the system.
Are you sure the good Congressman is not just trolling you? That is pretty damn funny though.
Shit like that turned the '08 election. The GOP went full-court press with telling seniors that the Democrats were going to gut Medicare and Social Security. For all the bullshit about how progressives failed the Democrats, the real story of the election was that the Democrats gave the Republicans enough ammunition for them to convince low-information voters and seniors that the GOP was the valiant defenders of the social safety net.
And in this cycle, we have Democrats desperately trying to get the GOP to agree to steep cuts in benefits. I'm sure the GOP is loving it.
The real point of raising taxes on the rich is political- when a small group of elites controls 40% of the total wealth, that just gives them way too much power over the system.
qft. How come I don't see this argument being made more often? Especially in a community of gamers. We've all seen what happens when someone is grossly OP compared to other players. I would think that someone familiar with game theory could make a very good argument that higher taxes on the rich can ensure a balanced playing field, and that said balanced playing field would be better for society.
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
The real point of raising taxes on the rich is political- when a small group of elites controls 40% of the total wealth, that just gives them way too much power over the system.
qft. How come I don't see this argument being made more often? Especially in a community of gamers. We've all seen what happens when someone is grossly OP compared to other players. I would think that someone familiar with game theory could make a very good argument that higher taxes on the rich can ensure a balanced playing field, and that said balanced playing field would be better for society.
A lot of people, even on the left, have bought into the myth that the national debt is an unstoppable evil which will destroy us all. I think that's really weakening the dens position.
There have been a lot of studies showing that lower inequality is correlated with better outcomes overall. I don't know if anyone has ever proved causation like you suggested, though.
Eh, he's not even the best political blogger (for all his faults, I think Sully is, though Steve Benen is pretty close). The best bloggers are all in college football.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
This argument is even more of an argument FOR more progressive taxation. If the elites pay most of our taxes it means the economy is fundamentally broken and it's impossible for people to earn a decent living. The Republicans are mischaracterizing these numbers to confuse you on what fundamental fairness in an economy means. The number that makes sense in determining one's "Excess money" is "percent of total income that is disposable income" as that tells you how much money people have left to actually spend on things they want to buy and don't need to buy.
So the fact that the rich pay so much in taxes is actually the Rs making our best argument for us. We just need to jump on it.
P.S. Please tell me who all of those Radical Democrats who are destroying the party are? I haven't forgot your stern refusal to state who they are!
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
If anyone making seven figures has a problem with the amount of taxes they pay, I'm sure their employer would be completely willing to reduce their level of compensation to a level at which the taxes they paid were more appropriate.
Jealous Deva on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
The real point of raising taxes on the rich is political- when a small group of elites controls 40% of the total wealth, that just gives them way too much power over the system.
qft. How come I don't see this argument being made more often? Especially in a community of gamers. We've all seen what happens when someone is grossly OP compared to other players. I would think that someone familiar with game theory could make a very good argument that higher taxes on the rich can ensure a balanced playing field, and that said balanced playing field would be better for society.
A lot of people, even on the left, have bought into the myth that the national debt is an unstoppable evil which will destroy us all. I think that's really weakening the dens position.
There have been a lot of studies showing that lower inequality is correlated with better outcomes overall. I don't know if anyone has ever proved causation like you suggested, though.
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
Crap, I wish I was making half of a six figure salary.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
I don't even get how someone who makes millions of dollars can be pissed about progressive taxes when their baseline standard of living is thousands of times better than someone in section 8 housing and on welfare.
Seems to be the last thing we should be doing is taxing people with no money. If only there was a solution to solve money issues... maybe taxing people that have excess money even more or something?
If all we wanted to do was shore up the social safety nets, we don't even really need to raise taxes on anyone. The federal government can finance that, easily, with deficit spending.
The real point of raising taxes on the rich is political- when a small group of elites controls 40% of the total wealth, that just gives them way too much power over the system.
Where does that money go then?
which money?
The extra money we're taking from the rich, if it's not needed for social programs.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
Crap, I wish I was making half of a six figure salary.
Location does matter here though. 100k in say NYC, DC, SF, is not the same as 100k in say Kentucky. Cost of living and all. Which is why blanket tax rates at the 100k-250k area are silly. How many of those suckers live in NYC? 100k doesn't go that far there.
I pay 1800 in raw rent a month for a studio, add in other things and that's well over 2k. Think about that, right off the bat I pay 24k a year just to live in a tiny ass apartment. Could I pay less, sure, but then I'd be out in the burbs and driving a car, which according to Than, would make me Hitler.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Seems to be the last thing we should be doing is taxing people with no money. If only there was a solution to solve money issues... maybe taxing people that have excess money even more or something?
If all we wanted to do was shore up the social safety nets, we don't even really need to raise taxes on anyone. The federal government can finance that, easily, with deficit spending.
The real point of raising taxes on the rich is political- when a small group of elites controls 40% of the total wealth, that just gives them way too much power over the system.
Where does that money go then?
which money?
The extra money we're taking from the rich, if it's not needed for social programs.
University tuition grants.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
Crap, I wish I was making half of a six figure salary.
Location does matter here though. 100k in say NYC, DC, SF, is not the same as 100k in say Kentucky. Cost of living and all. Which is why blanket tax rates at the 100k-250k area are silly. How many of those suckers live in NYC? 100k doesn't go that far there.
I pay 1800 in raw rent a month for a studio, add in other things and that's well over 2k. Think about that, right off the bat I pay 24k a year just to live in a tiny ass apartment. Could I pay less, sure, but then I'd be out in the burbs and driving a car, which according to Than, would make me Hitler.
100k is plenty to live in this city. Plenty. How do I know? I make less than 1/3 of that.
Seems to be the last thing we should be doing is taxing people with no money. If only there was a solution to solve money issues... maybe taxing people that have excess money even more or something?
If all we wanted to do was shore up the social safety nets, we don't even really need to raise taxes on anyone. The federal government can finance that, easily, with deficit spending.
The real point of raising taxes on the rich is political- when a small group of elites controls 40% of the total wealth, that just gives them way too much power over the system.
Where does that money go then?
which money?
The extra money we're taking from the rich, if it's not needed for social programs.
University tuition grants.
I like you.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
I don't even get how someone who makes millions of dollars can be pissed about progressive taxes when their baseline standard of living is thousands of times better than someone in section 8 housing and on welfare.
You assume all people with $$$ live in luxury and blow lines of cook off hookers asses and light cigars with 100 dollar bills, not the case. IRRC my dad had a raw income of about 300k a year back in the 80s, nothing to laugh at. However that money was all put into funds for various items and we had cheap Japanese cars and bought food at price club (now costco). A shit ton of that cash was depleted, millions of it, paying for experimental medical treaments for my brother and sisters cancer followed by mother and fathers. He got wrecked in a divorce at one point (haha, woman takes all, equality) and the rest was all stashed away in a fund. He's giving it all away when he dies and it's not going to the kids.
His tax gripes were always about waste, which does exist. And he voted Democratic and donated Democratic for social issues but was big on helping them be more pro "professional" and pro "business", he loved how that became easy post the civil rights movement with the new Democrats (aka rich white college kids that never served) and as a former Army officer he's given untold amounts to military charities to the point we went negative in some years.
Not all people griping about taxes want a 4th house.
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
Crap, I wish I was making half of a six figure salary.
Location does matter here though. 100k in say NYC, DC, SF, is not the same as 100k in say Kentucky. Cost of living and all. Which is why blanket tax rates at the 100k-250k area are silly. How many of those suckers live in NYC? 100k doesn't go that far there.
I pay 1800 in raw rent a month for a studio, add in other things and that's well over 2k. Think about that, right off the bat I pay 24k a year just to live in a tiny ass apartment. Could I pay less, sure, but then I'd be out in the burbs and driving a car, which according to Than, would make me Hitler.
100k is plenty to live in this city. Plenty. How do I know? I make less than 1/3 of that.
Good for you I guess, you must be young! I lived on less than I make now as an enlisted e-5 and when I clawed my way up the corporate ladder. However for a person with a decade of work in their field in a major city, 100k isn't that odd.
At first I was confused as to the nonsense of this post, then I looked at the name.
-M-80s are illegal in the entire US, have been for decades (by numerous organizations) so...silly goose #1.
-"CS Gas only hurts pussies." Um, no, it's acid that can cause permanent damage to the lungs with extreme exposure. Even the "hard man" who picks fights with bears for fun is going to cough, tear-up and slow down without protection. Which is the point, of course. Egotistical goose #2.
-As my posted links mentioned, Hollow points are actually REQUIRED for hunting some game because they kill more effectively and are less likely to go through and hit something or someone else. This is not joy in suffering and inhumanity, it is actually the opposite. The goal is to kill the target and nothing else as quickly as possible. Fundamentally it is all about whether or not the bullet is going to hit and hurt the target or go through, doing much less damage to the target and doing more damage to its surroundings.
But yes yes, stupid hippies are stupid and you're so much better than them.
Location does matter here though. 100k in say NYC, DC, SF, is not the same as 100k in say Kentucky. Cost of living and all. Which is why blanket tax rates at the 100k-250k area are silly. How many of those suckers live in NYC? 100k doesn't go that far there.
I pay 1800 in raw rent a month for a studio, add in other things and that's well over 2k. Think about that, right off the bat I pay 24k a year just to live in a tiny ass apartment. Could I pay less, sure, but then I'd be out in the burbs and driving a car, which according to Than, would make me Hitler.
Indeed, location does matter. Which is why the meaningful statistic is "percent of total income that is disposable income" and that's why the Republicans insistence on raw dollars earned is incredibly misleading.
P.S. Thank you for intentionally choosing not to respond to me! I see what you're doing
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
"The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. [...] and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned [...] weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable."
I can't find a source for it, but it's my impression that in 1899 hollow points would fragment, making removal from a living body a surgical nightmare.
Seems to be the last thing we should be doing is taxing people with no money. If only there was a solution to solve money issues... maybe taxing people that have excess money even more or something?
If all we wanted to do was shore up the social safety nets, we don't even really need to raise taxes on anyone. The federal government can finance that, easily, with deficit spending.
The real point of raising taxes on the rich is political- when a small group of elites controls 40% of the total wealth, that just gives them way too much power over the system.
Where does that money go then?
which money?
The extra money we're taking from the rich, if it's not needed for social programs.
University tuition grants.
I like you.
University tuition grants
Curing diseases
Road infrastructure
Internet infrastructure
Teachers and cops that get paid enough to live.
Alternative energy
Location does matter here though. 100k in say NYC, DC, SF, is not the same as 100k in say Kentucky. Cost of living and all. Which is why blanket tax rates at the 100k-250k area are silly. How many of those suckers live in NYC? 100k doesn't go that far there.
I pay 1800 in raw rent a month for a studio, add in other things and that's well over 2k. Think about that, right off the bat I pay 24k a year just to live in a tiny ass apartment. Could I pay less, sure, but then I'd be out in the burbs and driving a car, which according to Than, would make me Hitler.
Indeed, location does matter. Which is why the meaningful statistic is "percent of total income that is disposable income" and that's why the Republicans insistence on raw dollars earned is incredibly misleading.
P.S. Thank you for intentionally choosing not to respond to me! I see what you're doing
That's one of the reasons I'm far more comfortable states choosing tax rates than some uber federal level hit job. I mean, I think we can all agree that some income is absurd no matter where you live, yet on the other hand someone in NYC has a cost of living that is far worse than what is in hickland. I personally think tax rates need to go up, but how that works depends on where you live. I don't think I've voted no on a single "should the local government contract a debt and do blah blah blah" or a "should the local government raise taxes and do blah blah blah" I kinda like having a nice place to live... I vote against school funding each time though in DC, but those fuckers are the mafia.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
I don't even get how someone who makes millions of dollars can be pissed about progressive taxes when their baseline standard of living is thousands of times better than someone in section 8 housing and on welfare.
You assume all people with $$$ live in luxury and blow lines of cook off hookers asses and light cigars with 100 dollar bills, not the case. IRRC my dad had a raw income of about 300k a year back in the 80s, nothing to laugh at. However that money was all put into funds for various items and we had cheap Japanese cars and bought food at price club (now costco). A shit ton of that cash was depleted, millions of it, paying for experimental medical treaments for my brother and sisters cancer followed by mother and fathers. He got wrecked in a divorce at one point (haha, woman takes all, equality) and the rest was all stashed away in a fund. He's giving it all away when he dies and it's not going to the kids.
His tax gripes were always about waste, which does exist. And he voted Democratic and donated Democratic for social issues but was big on helping them be more pro "professional" and pro "business", he loved how that became easy post the civil rights movement with the new Democrats (aka rich white college kids that never served) and as a former Army officer he's given untold amounts to military charities to the point we went negative in some years.
Not all people griping about taxes want a 4th house.
Not at all, I just don't understand how you're missing the key point here: His life was not materially affected in a significant by the tax rate he paid. Someone who makes 30k and pays no taxes likely can't afford a reliable mode of transport, can't take advantage of economies of scale from costco due to unreliable transport and most definitely doesn't have the luxury of paying for cancer treatments let alone experimental ones.
Do you really want to live in a society where your income determines you ability to survive treatable and manageable diseases?
"The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. [...] and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned [...] weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable."
I can't find a source for it, but it's my impression that in 1899 hollow points would fragment, making removal from a living body a surgical nightmare.
It's true and he's a goose, and just being one. But it's OK, he's a progressive, so he gets a pass, just nod and move on. Also they still fragment. You don't want to be fishing through someone for shards of a bullet logged into a bone, it's just cruel.
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
I don't even get how someone who makes millions of dollars can be pissed about progressive taxes when their baseline standard of living is thousands of times better than someone in section 8 housing and on welfare.
You assume all people with $$$ live in luxury and blow lines of cook off hookers asses and light cigars with 100 dollar bills, not the case. IRRC my dad had a raw income of about 300k a year back in the 80s, nothing to laugh at. However that money was all put into funds for various items and we had cheap Japanese cars and bought food at price club (now costco). A shit ton of that cash was depleted, millions of it, paying for experimental medical treaments for my brother and sisters cancer followed by mother and fathers. He got wrecked in a divorce at one point (haha, woman takes all, equality) and the rest was all stashed away in a fund. He's giving it all away when he dies and it's not going to the kids.
His tax gripes were always about waste, which does exist. And he voted Democratic and donated Democratic for social issues but was big on helping them be more pro "professional" and pro "business", he loved how that became easy post the civil rights movement with the new Democrats (aka rich white college kids that never served) and as a former Army officer he's given untold amounts to military charities to the point we went negative in some years.
Not all people griping about taxes want a 4th house.
Not at all, I just don't understand how you're missing the key point here: His life was not materially affected in a significant by the tax rate he paid. Someone who makes 30k and pays no taxes likely can't afford a reliable mode of transport, can't take advantage of economies of scale from costco due to unreliable transport and most definitely doesn't have the luxury of paying for cancer treatments let alone experimental ones.
Do you really want to live in a society where your income determines you ability to survive treatable and manageable diseases?
Name me one in which it doesn't? Not try to be an ass here but the majority of my family lives in socialized Netherlands, they come here for major things because the quality is better. They come here constantly.
And when I made less than 30 and was in the Navy I still had transportation that worked, granted not as nice, but it was there.
Name me one in which it doesn't? Not try to be an ass here but the majority of my family lives in socialized Netherlands, they come here for major things because the quality is better. They come here constantly.
And when I made less than 30 and was in the Navy I still had transportation that worked, granted not as nice, but it was there.
And I have friends from France and Germany who do the opposite, both because the treatment is better and doesn't put them in debt. Some countries do things better than others.
And the Dutch must do things really poorly, because they are the first Europeans I've heard of that would come to America for treatment for anything. I used to spend a good deal of time over there, including with a lot of professionals who had experience living in the the U.S. and who could have afforded to come back here for treatment, and the only comments I heard about our healthcare system were more pitying than envious.
Here is the thing though, those elites also pay more of the taxes. The Republicans want the amount of taxes paid, ie funds actually take in, to be more evenly shared. And I'm cool with that, however before that the amount we are all making has to be more equally shared. I get that some cat who pulls down a cool million pays more taxes than I do and thus to an extent he's paying for me, and I get why he might be pissed. On the other fucking hand of it I'm barely breaking six figs only because IT wages have dropped due to farming all our jobs out to India, which is why he has all that cash.
I don't even get how someone who makes millions of dollars can be pissed about progressive taxes when their baseline standard of living is thousands of times better than someone in section 8 housing and on welfare.
You assume all people with $$$ live in luxury and blow lines of cook off hookers asses and light cigars with 100 dollar bills, not the case. IRRC my dad had a raw income of about 300k a year back in the 80s, nothing to laugh at. However that money was all put into funds for various items and we had cheap Japanese cars and bought food at price club (now costco). A shit ton of that cash was depleted, millions of it, paying for experimental medical treaments for my brother and sisters cancer followed by mother and fathers. He got wrecked in a divorce at one point (haha, woman takes all, equality) and the rest was all stashed away in a fund. He's giving it all away when he dies and it's not going to the kids.
His tax gripes were always about waste, which does exist. And he voted Democratic and donated Democratic for social issues but was big on helping them be more pro "professional" and pro "business", he loved how that became easy post the civil rights movement with the new Democrats (aka rich white college kids that never served) and as a former Army officer he's given untold amounts to military charities to the point we went negative in some years.
Not all people griping about taxes want a 4th house.
Not at all, I just don't understand how you're missing the key point here: His life was not materially affected in a significant by the tax rate he paid. Someone who makes 30k and pays no taxes likely can't afford a reliable mode of transport, can't take advantage of economies of scale from costco due to unreliable transport and most definitely doesn't have the luxury of paying for cancer treatments let alone experimental ones.
Do you really want to live in a society where your income determines you ability to survive treatable and manageable diseases?
Name me one in which it doesn't? Not try to be an ass here but the majority of my family lives in socialized Netherlands, they come here for major things because the quality is better. They come here constantly.
And when I made less than 30 and was in the Navy I still had transportation that worked, granted not as nice, but it was there.
Our healthcare is terrible unless you're rich. I can lay out some examples if you need to but that's pretty much a given.
Yeah. Rich people around the world come here for a handful of world class hospitals - Johns Hopkins, Mayo, Duke, etc. - but I have insurance, and I couldn't afford to go to them. I might break down and try to get into one if I was dying, but even then I've heard that you have to seriously work the referral system to get a slot at one of those hospitals.
A guy in Britain or France could go to one of their world-class hospitals for free. If you have cancer, London's Charing Cross is one of the best places in the world for you to be, and that's one of several world class medical centers in Europe.
Seems to be the last thing we should be doing is taxing people with no money. If only there was a solution to solve money issues... maybe taxing people that have excess money even more or something?
If all we wanted to do was shore up the social safety nets, we don't even really need to raise taxes on anyone. The federal government can finance that, easily, with deficit spending.
The real point of raising taxes on the rich is political- when a small group of elites controls 40% of the total wealth, that just gives them way too much power over the system.
Where does that money go then?
which money?
The extra money we're taking from the rich, if it's not needed for social programs.
It's used to pay for spending that would have otherwise been financed by deficit spending.
It's true and he's a goose, and just being one. But it's OK, he's a progressive, so he gets a pass, just nod and move on. Also they still fragment. You don't want to be fishing through someone for shards of a bullet logged into a bone, it's just cruel.
Actually, he get's a pass for sounding reasonable and not talking trash. I do agree with you though; Hollow points should not be standard load for police. Rubber bullets should be. Or at least low-velocity jacketed rounds. Killing the citizenry should not be something that happens on a regular basis.
Edit: and a minute later he losses that pass by talking trash. :Falm:
"The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. [...] and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned [...] weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable."
I can't find a source for it, but it's my impression that in 1899 hollow points would fragment, making removal from a living body a surgical nightmare.
It's true and he's a goose, and just being one. But it's OK, he's a progressive, so he gets a pass, just nod and move on. Also they still fragment. You don't want to be fishing through someone for shards of a bullet logged into a bone, it's just cruel.
I like how that has nothing to do with my point OR position from a perspective of law enforcement. That's okay though because you don't have to deal with that because you can label me a progressive. And in your version of reality a progressive is a complicated combination of stupid hippy, overbearing tyrannical majority that is given all the unfair advantages, irrational fringe group that no one sympathizes with, heartless inhuman monster, bleeding heart weakling, violent thug, and terrified pussy.
Actually, he get's a pass for sounding reasonable and not talking trash. I do agree with you though; Hollow points should not be standard load for police. Rubber bullets should be. Or at least low-velocity jacketed rounds. Killing the citizenry should not be something that happens on a regular basis.
Well that is the question. The line where police need to use lethal force is fairly well codified (even if a lot of officers end up bending or breaking that code) but it is also very easy to debate since it depends a lot on your relative morality. Yes one type of bullet is nastier than the other, but if the goal is termination of the target, the nastiness of the wound doesn't really matter to some.
Low velocity rounds and rubber bullets all have their advantages and disadvantages, but the point of this is all the question of whether or not the use of hollow points by the police is somehow an indication that they are worse than war. The claim that it does seems to lack weight.
Boring7 on
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I would prefer if the police carried both types of ammunition, but had to reload the pistol if they wanted the regular rounds.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
That's one of the reasons I'm far more comfortable states choosing tax rates than some uber federal level hit job. I mean, I think we can all agree that some income is absurd no matter where you live, yet on the other hand someone in NYC has a cost of living that is far worse than what is in hickland. I personally think tax rates need to go up, but how that works depends on where you live. I don't think I've voted no on a single "should the local government contract a debt and do blah blah blah" or a "should the local government raise taxes and do blah blah blah" I kinda like having a nice place to live... I vote against school funding each time though in DC, but those fuckers are the mafia.
Why can't the Federal Government do this? I mean it's not like these numbers exist under lock and key, and only State officials can determine cost of living. The traditional reason why you had federated government was because before we couldn't figure that out because we were so low tech. We can adjust for all of these things now. Why should the state be the one doing this? If anything it only encourages Millionaires, Billionaires, and Businesses to then migrate to whichever state government is the easiest to corrupt. And yes, some income is absurd but the incomes are only absurd in how much extra money they give some people. If it costs $1,000,000.00 a month to have a one bedroom apartment in a hole in the wall, the fault lies not with the state who pays their employee to live there but with the market that has unfairly set prices on rent.
Of course that's a very basic situation and there are many other factors to take into account but bottom line is this: We can figure this stuff out, it's not hard, it's that people just flat out refuse to do it because money has taken over almost all levels of government. Having "the state" do something makes sense if there is some legitimate function that only a state government can handle. By and large technology has erased those constraints and the only reason why "State government" is in any way better today, is you might, just might have a slightly better chance of influencing elections with facts since organized money doesn't run as vicious a campaign at state level. But I would more say that's indicative again, that money has entirely destroyed politics. We the people no longer elect representatives, We the owners of the Nation's Wealth do.
Local government also can be even worse than state governments. Have you seen what some school boards try to force teachers to put in the classroom? In many cases the appeal of "States rights!" or "Federalism!" especially when it comes from Republicans is just a slight of hand to say "We want local balkanized tribal governments that will force our regressive social agenda down everyone's throats, and if they refuse we'll use the federal government to force them!" which you can see now with how the rhetoric on Gay Marriage and the Big A-word have turned in politics. It used to be "States rights!" until we started convincing the states to change the laws, and suddenly it became "This is always wrong!" which seems to me, to betray that the politicians involved were arguing about this disingenuously from the start, and we should treat any such appeals to those same arguments with the same high level of scrutiny.
P.S.: You still haven't told me who those Radical Democrats that are destroying the party are. I was hoping for a list sometime next century. ;p
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
It's unclear to me how our participation, on our personal time, in a non-partisan movement warrants termination from our jobs. If the protest is so lacking, in terms of message and focus, then how can my involvement with it go against The Takeaway's ethical policies? In other words, if I'm associated with a party-less movement (and barely associated, since that was only the second time I've attended an Occupy Wall Street event), and have never exercised bias in editing "The Takeaway's" website, what's the harm.
This hits really close to home as I actually know Caitlyn. My older sister is really good friends with her.
I saw this last week and the thing that surprised me the most about it is the fact that she does a show about opera. Her contribution to NPR has nothing to do with politics so I'm not entirely sure how any of her political biases could bleed into her commentary on music.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Posts
which money?
Shit like that turned the '08 election. The GOP went full-court press with telling seniors that the Democrats were going to gut Medicare and Social Security. For all the bullshit about how progressives failed the Democrats, the real story of the election was that the Democrats gave the Republicans enough ammunition for them to convince low-information voters and seniors that the GOP was the valiant defenders of the social safety net.
And in this cycle, we have Democrats desperately trying to get the GOP to agree to steep cuts in benefits. I'm sure the GOP is loving it.
qft. How come I don't see this argument being made more often? Especially in a community of gamers. We've all seen what happens when someone is grossly OP compared to other players. I would think that someone familiar with game theory could make a very good argument that higher taxes on the rich can ensure a balanced playing field, and that said balanced playing field would be better for society.
Matt Yglesias is the best blogger.
You misunderstand the tone of the letter.
That's a list of accomplishments.
Only you can help impoverish and enslave mankind.
There have been a lot of studies showing that lower inequality is correlated with better outcomes overall. I don't know if anyone has ever proved causation like you suggested, though.
Eh, he's not even the best political blogger (for all his faults, I think Sully is, though Steve Benen is pretty close). The best bloggers are all in college football.
This argument is even more of an argument FOR more progressive taxation. If the elites pay most of our taxes it means the economy is fundamentally broken and it's impossible for people to earn a decent living. The Republicans are mischaracterizing these numbers to confuse you on what fundamental fairness in an economy means. The number that makes sense in determining one's "Excess money" is "percent of total income that is disposable income" as that tells you how much money people have left to actually spend on things they want to buy and don't need to buy.
So the fact that the rich pay so much in taxes is actually the Rs making our best argument for us. We just need to jump on it.
P.S. Please tell me who all of those Radical Democrats who are destroying the party are? I haven't forgot your stern refusal to state who they are!
If anyone making seven figures has a problem with the amount of taxes they pay, I'm sure their employer would be completely willing to reduce their level of compensation to a level at which the taxes they paid were more appropriate.
I remember guests on Jenny Jones accusing everyone of envying their "FIONE ASS BODY"
Crap, I wish I was making half of a six figure salary.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I don't even get how someone who makes millions of dollars can be pissed about progressive taxes when their baseline standard of living is thousands of times better than someone in section 8 housing and on welfare.
The extra money we're taking from the rich, if it's not needed for social programs.
Location does matter here though. 100k in say NYC, DC, SF, is not the same as 100k in say Kentucky. Cost of living and all. Which is why blanket tax rates at the 100k-250k area are silly. How many of those suckers live in NYC? 100k doesn't go that far there.
I pay 1800 in raw rent a month for a studio, add in other things and that's well over 2k. Think about that, right off the bat I pay 24k a year just to live in a tiny ass apartment. Could I pay less, sure, but then I'd be out in the burbs and driving a car, which according to Than, would make me Hitler.
University tuition grants.
100k is plenty to live in this city. Plenty. How do I know? I make less than 1/3 of that.
Use it to keep the deficit bogeyman away.
I like you.
You assume all people with $$$ live in luxury and blow lines of cook off hookers asses and light cigars with 100 dollar bills, not the case. IRRC my dad had a raw income of about 300k a year back in the 80s, nothing to laugh at. However that money was all put into funds for various items and we had cheap Japanese cars and bought food at price club (now costco). A shit ton of that cash was depleted, millions of it, paying for experimental medical treaments for my brother and sisters cancer followed by mother and fathers. He got wrecked in a divorce at one point (haha, woman takes all, equality) and the rest was all stashed away in a fund. He's giving it all away when he dies and it's not going to the kids.
His tax gripes were always about waste, which does exist. And he voted Democratic and donated Democratic for social issues but was big on helping them be more pro "professional" and pro "business", he loved how that became easy post the civil rights movement with the new Democrats (aka rich white college kids that never served) and as a former Army officer he's given untold amounts to military charities to the point we went negative in some years.
Not all people griping about taxes want a 4th house.
Good for you I guess, you must be young! I lived on less than I make now as an enlisted e-5 and when I clawed my way up the corporate ladder. However for a person with a decade of work in their field in a major city, 100k isn't that odd.
At first I was confused as to the nonsense of this post, then I looked at the name.
-M-80s are illegal in the entire US, have been for decades (by numerous organizations) so...silly goose #1.
-"CS Gas only hurts pussies." Um, no, it's acid that can cause permanent damage to the lungs with extreme exposure. Even the "hard man" who picks fights with bears for fun is going to cough, tear-up and slow down without protection. Which is the point, of course. Egotistical goose #2.
-As my posted links mentioned, Hollow points are actually REQUIRED for hunting some game because they kill more effectively and are less likely to go through and hit something or someone else. This is not joy in suffering and inhumanity, it is actually the opposite. The goal is to kill the target and nothing else as quickly as possible. Fundamentally it is all about whether or not the bullet is going to hit and hurt the target or go through, doing much less damage to the target and doing more damage to its surroundings.
But yes yes, stupid hippies are stupid and you're so much better than them.
We should just make an FAQ to link every time the "100k in X is not the same as 100k in Y" debate gets fired up.
Indeed, location does matter. Which is why the meaningful statistic is "percent of total income that is disposable income" and that's why the Republicans insistence on raw dollars earned is incredibly misleading.
P.S. Thank you for intentionally choosing not to respond to me! I see what you're doing
"The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. [...] and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned [...] weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable."
I can't find a source for it, but it's my impression that in 1899 hollow points would fragment, making removal from a living body a surgical nightmare.
University tuition grants
Curing diseases
Road infrastructure
Internet infrastructure
Teachers and cops that get paid enough to live.
Alternative energy
That's one of the reasons I'm far more comfortable states choosing tax rates than some uber federal level hit job. I mean, I think we can all agree that some income is absurd no matter where you live, yet on the other hand someone in NYC has a cost of living that is far worse than what is in hickland. I personally think tax rates need to go up, but how that works depends on where you live. I don't think I've voted no on a single "should the local government contract a debt and do blah blah blah" or a "should the local government raise taxes and do blah blah blah" I kinda like having a nice place to live... I vote against school funding each time though in DC, but those fuckers are the mafia.
Not at all, I just don't understand how you're missing the key point here: His life was not materially affected in a significant by the tax rate he paid. Someone who makes 30k and pays no taxes likely can't afford a reliable mode of transport, can't take advantage of economies of scale from costco due to unreliable transport and most definitely doesn't have the luxury of paying for cancer treatments let alone experimental ones.
Do you really want to live in a society where your income determines you ability to survive treatable and manageable diseases?
It's true and he's a goose, and just being one. But it's OK, he's a progressive, so he gets a pass, just nod and move on. Also they still fragment. You don't want to be fishing through someone for shards of a bullet logged into a bone, it's just cruel.
Name me one in which it doesn't? Not try to be an ass here but the majority of my family lives in socialized Netherlands, they come here for major things because the quality is better. They come here constantly.
And when I made less than 30 and was in the Navy I still had transportation that worked, granted not as nice, but it was there.
And I have friends from France and Germany who do the opposite, both because the treatment is better and doesn't put them in debt. Some countries do things better than others.
And the Dutch must do things really poorly, because they are the first Europeans I've heard of that would come to America for treatment for anything. I used to spend a good deal of time over there, including with a lot of professionals who had experience living in the the U.S. and who could have afforded to come back here for treatment, and the only comments I heard about our healthcare system were more pitying than envious.
Cancer.
Yeah. Rich people around the world come here for a handful of world class hospitals - Johns Hopkins, Mayo, Duke, etc. - but I have insurance, and I couldn't afford to go to them. I might break down and try to get into one if I was dying, but even then I've heard that you have to seriously work the referral system to get a slot at one of those hospitals.
A guy in Britain or France could go to one of their world-class hospitals for free. If you have cancer, London's Charing Cross is one of the best places in the world for you to be, and that's one of several world class medical centers in Europe.
It's used to pay for spending that would have otherwise been financed by deficit spending.
Actually, he get's a pass for sounding reasonable and not talking trash. I do agree with you though; Hollow points should not be standard load for police. Rubber bullets should be. Or at least low-velocity jacketed rounds. Killing the citizenry should not be something that happens on a regular basis.
Edit: and a minute later he losses that pass by talking trash. :Falm:
I like how that has nothing to do with my point OR position from a perspective of law enforcement. That's okay though because you don't have to deal with that because you can label me a progressive. And in your version of reality a progressive is a complicated combination of stupid hippy, overbearing tyrannical majority that is given all the unfair advantages, irrational fringe group that no one sympathizes with, heartless inhuman monster, bleeding heart weakling, violent thug, and terrified pussy.
But you're you, and so I don't take it personal.
Well that is the question. The line where police need to use lethal force is fairly well codified (even if a lot of officers end up bending or breaking that code) but it is also very easy to debate since it depends a lot on your relative morality. Yes one type of bullet is nastier than the other, but if the goal is termination of the target, the nastiness of the wound doesn't really matter to some.
Low velocity rounds and rubber bullets all have their advantages and disadvantages, but the point of this is all the question of whether or not the use of hollow points by the police is somehow an indication that they are worse than war. The claim that it does seems to lack weight.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Why can't the Federal Government do this? I mean it's not like these numbers exist under lock and key, and only State officials can determine cost of living. The traditional reason why you had federated government was because before we couldn't figure that out because we were so low tech. We can adjust for all of these things now. Why should the state be the one doing this? If anything it only encourages Millionaires, Billionaires, and Businesses to then migrate to whichever state government is the easiest to corrupt. And yes, some income is absurd but the incomes are only absurd in how much extra money they give some people. If it costs $1,000,000.00 a month to have a one bedroom apartment in a hole in the wall, the fault lies not with the state who pays their employee to live there but with the market that has unfairly set prices on rent.
Of course that's a very basic situation and there are many other factors to take into account but bottom line is this: We can figure this stuff out, it's not hard, it's that people just flat out refuse to do it because money has taken over almost all levels of government. Having "the state" do something makes sense if there is some legitimate function that only a state government can handle. By and large technology has erased those constraints and the only reason why "State government" is in any way better today, is you might, just might have a slightly better chance of influencing elections with facts since organized money doesn't run as vicious a campaign at state level. But I would more say that's indicative again, that money has entirely destroyed politics. We the people no longer elect representatives, We the owners of the Nation's Wealth do.
Local government also can be even worse than state governments. Have you seen what some school boards try to force teachers to put in the classroom? In many cases the appeal of "States rights!" or "Federalism!" especially when it comes from Republicans is just a slight of hand to say "We want local balkanized tribal governments that will force our regressive social agenda down everyone's throats, and if they refuse we'll use the federal government to force them!" which you can see now with how the rhetoric on Gay Marriage and the Big A-word have turned in politics. It used to be "States rights!" until we started convincing the states to change the laws, and suddenly it became "This is always wrong!" which seems to me, to betray that the politicians involved were arguing about this disingenuously from the start, and we should treat any such appeals to those same arguments with the same high level of scrutiny.
P.S.: You still haven't told me who those Radical Democrats that are destroying the party are. I was hoping for a list sometime next century. ;p
I saw this last week and the thing that surprised me the most about it is the fact that she does a show about opera. Her contribution to NPR has nothing to do with politics so I'm not entirely sure how any of her political biases could bleed into her commentary on music.