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

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 13:31:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
 

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 12:43:47 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
>

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 07:12:09 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:25:24 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> 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.

>
LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
>
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

>
What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.

>
I have no idea what communalism means. Wikipedia says "Not to
be confused with Communism or Communitarianism.". And then goes on to
explain that communism is a dictatorship and communitarianism in a
right wing (conservative) form of government. Both are bad.
>
I was talking about socialism. (which in a democracy would be
social democracy). What was prevalent during the "baby Boomers" era.
In the 60's and 70's civilized countries spent more than 50%
of their total resources on the welfare state. It was the best era to
be alive.
No unemployment, good salaries, no worries about the future,
cheap (usually subsidized) housing and transport, good quality state
schooling and medical care. Holidays and bonuses were expected. It was
one of the most productive phases (both intellectually and in actual
products) in the last 100 years.
Of course, if you lived in a barbaric country, you would not
have known that. I forgive you. Not your fault.
[]'s
>

>
Communalism is simply the oppoite of individualism. Socialism and
communism are both communalistic structures.

  Individualism must be a nightmare. Every individual lives by
his own laws, takes what he needs, decides how much tax he should pay,
decides what services he has a right to, decides whether another
citizen has the right to live or die. Food and shelter are decided on
"who got there first and has the biggest gun"
You sure there are people that support that? I mean, people
that are still free on the streets and not locked up in an asylum?
Oh wait. USA=>no public healthcare. The psychotic ARE free to
roam the streets.
[]'s