this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
1049 points (97.5% liked)
worldnews
4845 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I won't. However I'm in a country where election doesn't decide anything anymore (and if it did, the last time was a few months after I was born), military force will at some point of decay.
It's peculiar to see a whole crowd of people illiterate in economics calling everybody outside their group "sheep".
Progressives are usually friendlier to the idea of raising taxes. Which is taking people's money. No, it's not different.
But it's people like you doing the same thing in every generation and acting surprised when it turns out that for any big corporation (including the goverment) they are bugs.
OK, now that's my grave mistake, I really didn't want to piss on you, but the wind ...
The Dunning-Krueger is strong with this one...
I'm not engaging with a sheep that has swallowed every crumb of bullshit they've been fed.
And since you're slow with phrases, this one's hopefully more clear: Go fuck yourself. Seeing the flavor of your comments on a thread concerning women's rights, that's likely all you'll ever do anyway.
That's like yelling "hold the thief" - the thief always starts first.
So what are you doing now, exactly? You could have been silent if you didn't want to engage.
I prefer fucking you.
Do you realize that everybody reading this can also check my comments in this thread?
And see that either you yourself have a problem with reading comprehension, or you are deliberately trying to deceive your readers.
Talk about idiotic word salad. You must love the sound of your own voice.
Some of us read books and have a bit longer attention span.
Now, it doesn't take any effort for me to inform you that you are to me what I am to Mozart using just a bit more text than you're used to, so I'm doing that.
No intelligent signs of life detected, Captain Kirk
Oh, I knew it. Seems to be a pattern with ST fans. Though the best person I know is one, but that's a rarity.
I'm more on the Jedi side, appreciating all life, even if not really intelligent. Which is why it's actually amusing to keep this going.
I'm a Sith, that explains everything. Peace is a lie, Jedi scum
Raising taxes on the people that chronically find ways to never pay taxes. Not raising taxes on regular people. Nice try framing the argument the way you think it ought to go.
You said it yourself.
Regular people range in age, income, education, districts where they live, various kinds of health, ethnic background and so on. Dunno why I wrote that.
How do you determine "regular" in the law, in simple unambiguous words?
I believe taxes for the top 3 (if not 4) quintiles in the US should be higher.
So yeah, regular people don't pay enough in taxes
OK. I'm in general against raising taxes, but if yes, then top 4, because market incentives (share of the tax income) work on governments too.
That doesn't really make any sense as a response. My concern with the second quintile is damaging social mobility, which is key to a growing economy
For you, but I explained why. The same reason as why something controlled by people from the upper quintiles may become "too big to fail".
The more you are taxing people, the more you want their income not to tank. I think this is obvious.
Again this makes no sense
I am not leftist, and I know more about economics than you do, clearly.
I didn't say I didn't understand you. I said what you said doesn't make sense. It's a nonsensical argument.
Pigouvian, taxes for example, do not depend on you having any income whatsoever.
Moreover the idea that "too big to fail" has anything to do with taxation is beyond absurd.
If you want to be taken seriously, know what you're talking about, and speak with specificity.
I am a proud neoliberal, and focused on evidenced-based policy, not a leftist.
Since you don't know what a pigouvian tax is, it's a tax designed to disincentives certain behaviors. "Sin" taxes are pigouvian. They're designed to address externalities not borne by the initial transaction.
I'm not surprised you have little understanding of terms, but perhaps instead of doing this limp-wristed slap fighting you could actually stay on topic and describe what the fuck you meant above.
The point of a pigouvian tax is not to fund the government, but to shape behavior and address externalities. Revenue is not the intent.
Again you're not saying anything meaningful or specific. You can just say "I was talking out of my ass and barely remember the conversation." It's fine.