Re: Montana: "Let's make stupidity mandatory!"

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:25:04 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 1/16/2025 3:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 1/15/2025 6:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/15/2025 5:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/15/2025 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/15/2025 1:02 PM, Shadow wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:39 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>
>

This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

>
     The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
     Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
     []'s

>
Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

>
It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For
what?
>

>
You've written that previously.
>
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
income tax revenue:
>
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
>
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
collecting revenues shows the complex mix of factors:
>
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
>
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

>
I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.
>

I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

>
How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?

 
Wow! A limit on how much a person can have?  and then what? A wealth
tax?
 

I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

 
So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?
 
I am reminded of wealthy TV "preachers" enticing poor people to send
them money, with "call this number and I'll pray for you."
 
For what it's worth. I have no issues with religion itself, nor with
the study and education of it, but doesn't it say somewhere in the
Bible that you should go off by yourself to pray instead of having
somebody in a robe and/or a collar stand you up, tell you to bow your
head, and listen while he/she speaks for you?
 
That never worked for me.
 

Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
>
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

 
Thankfully, the plans for more collectivist policies in the USA got
shot down pretty seriously last November. I don't know if the USA can
ever move back toward individualism, but at least, the movement away
from it got impaired.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
Nice thought.
>
But from what I see, individualism and small government have
been abandoned by both parties. We're seeing a large shift
on many _issues_ but not on reckless spending- it's just
going slightly elsewhere (not fully elsewhere).  This shift
seems to be on a few specific practical points but both
parties have abandoned principle.

I hope you're wrong, but I suspect you're right. Perhaps I'm hoping
for a miracle for my prodigy's sake. Unfortunately, they don't seem
terribly interested in it.

As for political principle, it died long ago, or perhaps it was never
there at all. At any rate, I have little doubt that we humans will
eventually destroy ourselves.

--
C'est bon
Soloman