Dems not catching up to other left parties in other countries isn't Dems moving right. The examples I gave demonstrate a clear, if only moderate, move to the left. Their move is barely perceptible, but certainly not to the right.
bostonbananarama
joined 1 year ago
But if you tax based on wealth, doesn't that make home ownership less possible? Property taxes aren't going away, but now a wealth tax is going to hit property owners? Sales tax is extremely regressive. Income tax is one of the few ways to do progressive taxing.
Your argument is that the Dems have moved to the right, but I'm struggling to think of any examples of that in the last 30+ years. During Clinton's term they passed DOMA and DADT, and now they're in favor of same sex marriage and trans rights. The ACA, CFPB, attempts at student loan forgiveness, lowering prescription prices, etc. I just don't see how the left has moved to the right, although I agree that the right has moved right.
I never understand people who make comments like this, what were you expecting going into Twisters? Citizen Kane? I watched Twisters today, it was a mindlessly fun little movie, exactly as expected.
The first three are great, the fourth idea is insane. Why shouldn't people pay into their government? If you're poor, like the first $25k, fine let that be tax free, but why not keep the money in the government coffers and provide single payer healthcare, free college tuition, student debt forgiveness, municipal broadband? Our taxes are not high compared to other western nations.
That's not really true though. There were very few SCOTUS precedents on the 2A, really just Cruikshank and Presser until recently. Heller really changed it all in 2008, being the first court to find an individual right. And the 2A didn't get incorporated until 2010 in McDonald.
The issue is that bad precedent is begging to be overturned. I can't imagine Bruen standing for a long time without being overturned or distinguished by a subsequent case.
I agree with the right, but Bruen was a trainwreck of a decision. Historical perspective is an absolutely ridiculous basis for determining the outer limits of the right.
If it makes you feel better, I did the same thing, but it took your comment for me to realize.
The main question seems to be why is the birth rate declining. Presumably people not wanting kids have existed during all times. But even if we assume that there are more people per capita who don't want kids, the question persists, why is that the case, and how much of the decline is attributable to it.
I call myself "Top Lover" but if you talk to my wife you'd get a different story...
All you would end up doing is creating a new business for accountants to devalue someone's holdings. I assume that you are saying that the wealth will be the value of the asset less any loan against the property, because that's the only way a first-time home buyer would be taxed nearly nothing. Why wouldn't the wealthy simply take loans against their assets thereby devaluing them for the purposes of a wealth calculation? The same way that they borrow against their stock portfolio.