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

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 1/16/2025 1:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/16/2025 12:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/16/2025 10:38 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/16/2025 9:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/16/2025 5:25 AM, Shadow 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.

 
Humans do organize and create language, universally.
You're right on that. But dramatic increases in
prosperity, invention, development and human flourishing
generally result from private property rights and
individual effort.

Strongly progressive tax systems - that is, much higher
taxes on the very wealthy - do not deter individual
effort. They do not materially hinder private property
rights. People in (e.g.) New Zealand are not worried that
their homes will be taken.
 
And speaking of that issue, which is the most important
private property issue: What developed country is most
likely to see a citizen's home taken from them?
 
I suspect it's the U.S.  One major cause of homelessness
is personal bankruptcy, caused by catastrophic medical fees.
 
How much would Elon Musk have to pay in taxes to make him
homeless?
 
 

 
It is not and that flawed analysis is why LA, after
literally billions wasted on 'homeless' has more than ever.

 
It's hard to find data, but if not a major cause, medical
debt is often a contributor. "At the Community Economic
Defense Project, or CEDP, a Denver nonprofit that helps
people facing eviction or home foreclosure, about two-thirds
of clients have medical debt, an informal survey by KFF
Health News and the organization suggests. Close to half of
the nearly 70 people surveyed said medical debt played a
role in their housing issue, with about 1 in 6 saying it was
a major factor."
 
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2023/09/11/1198534328/medical-debt-housing-security-
homelessness

 
Bums want alcohol and dope. They do not want shelter, or
food, or anything else until or unless alcohol and dope
are plentiful.

 
Perhaps similarly, it's a mistake to pretend that the
majority of homeless are that way due to addiction.
 
"Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are
homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around
2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or
alcohol use disorders." Polcin, D. L. (2016). Co-occurring
substance abuse and mental health problems among homeless
persons: suggestions for research and practice. Journal of
social distress and the homeless, 25(1), 1–10.
 
And note that of the 1/3 with those problems, we can't
assess the direction of causation. It's reasonable to assume
that a certain percentage of the homeless turn to self
medication in an attempt to cope with homelessness.
 

Every large city has shelters. Free warm shelters. Bums
avoid them as they universally prohibit dope and alcohol.
The bums would rather freeze on the street.

 
But the majority of homeless people are not bums on the street.
 

 
Medical (and other consumer) debt does wreck lives and
that's a serious subject for a different discussion.
 
Normal people, following a bankruptcy, foreclosure or
whatever, move to more humble dwellings; a rented room,
living room floor of a friend or relative and so on.  Was
there anyone deep in debt who ever slept on a sidewalk?
Probably. But that is far from the actual problem of addicts.
 
And we both skipped over deficient/deviant/dysfunctional
brains. A big problem (to some extent exacerbated with all
sorts of dope besides liquor) as yet unaddressed in our culture.
 

Even in uk, etc normal folks do end up in the streets at least according to
the charities who one would assume do know what they are talking about.

Sadly bad shit can happen and it can happen to you.

Roger Merriman