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

On 1/15/2025 8:28 PM, Frank Krygowski 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?
>
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.”
>
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.
>
>

 Thanks for making that clear; your worldview about both morality and values. Which are way out there.