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

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:22:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1/16/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/15/2025 9:50 PM, John B. 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?
>
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.

>
>
AS I posted previously what is "the wealthy"? After all you obviously
have more money then you require with your electric car, motorcycle
and bicycle.
>
Or are you one of those who argue, "No! No! Not me! Tax someone else!"
>
Remember that Jeff Bezos started by selling books out of his garage.
You could have done that. Why didn't you? So now you want to penalize,
with higher taxes,  someone simply because he was smarter the you?

 
Mr Krygowski is not alone in believing it's OK to steal as long as grand
promises are made and the various layers of civil service graft and
waste are preserved.
 
The usual retort to that immorality is, "Well, to make an omelet we must
break some eggs."
 
There is never an omelet.

>
And yet, there are plenty of countries whose policies produce less
income and wealth inequality, better social services, excellent
prosperity, more citizen contentment, lower crime rates, better
infrastructure...
>
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/income-equality
>
They seem happy with their omelets!  How are they doing what you deem
impossible?

They seem equally happy being deprived of freedom of speech. Some
people just beg to be told what to do and think..

--
C'est bon
Soloman