tantric superman

Agree, so why get worked up about it except for when the election results come around and you mutter "Jesus Tits, who the fuck voted for this guy."....

Well he is a Stanford man.

It's just terrible the way all media gives idiocy such a huge voice. We have to do our parts and simply start ignoring the stupidity until election time for these jerks rolls around.

I guess it depends on the child.

Well, and this is just a thought. Maybe we could make it a drug offense and decide we are going to treat the perpetrators like Negroes.

Got a big splinter in my ass from a chair upstairs.

A good time to point out that Cruz wasn't really pro-Nazi salute as opposed to just making a both sides argument that works for really silly people.

Yep, I'm not following the race but heard one short podcast about it and this seemed to be a gaffe for the ages.

I studied a bit of reggae in college, and are they still all about Haile Sellassie?

Stillwater (2021). A couple of big plot problems, but I liked it. The lead actors were all terrific. I read a review that said it was impossibly slow but I thought it just fine.

Youngkin is terrible. McAuliffe will win convincingly.

All I care about is whether he has advice for me for when I'm visiting Acuna, and I'm not up to being alone.

Since I live a relatively rustic and simple life, the utility of each additional dollar for me starts going down after around $3.50.

The marginal utility of each additional dollar past a certain points is diminishing, so no. This very fact is part of the reason that progressive taxation has been widely accepted, and is clearly the most equitable approach to in an economy driven by naturally inequitable market forces.

Hat's off to you tithers.

That's the issue for me. Let's get to 70s progressive rates first, and then worry about a wealth tax.

I think there may be only one billionaire in the world who would recognize me, and not by name. Just because I was one of his cadre of lawyers. The most important thing about the guy is that he employed me and probably about 250,000 people over his carrer due to his business prowess. That's paying wages and funding retirements and insurance plans. I don't have any beef with billionaires and they are absolutely necessary, I think, to the functioning of our economy. I don't have to hate them and I can still admire them and want to tax them a whole fuck lot more than they currently are getting taxed. Taxing this guy more wouldn't slow him down. It would make the game more fun and more challenging and the non-monetary rewards more sweet. But there is a progressive rate out there that would ruin the game for him, or at least the next big score, and until the economists convince me that its what the rates are now, we need to move them up.

Not to depress anyone, but assuming you have no pension and your retirement is going to be living off your nest egg, you are going to need $2million with a 5% return to make $100K (taxable if non-Roth) a year. So yeah, assuming we want to encourage people to be earning (and spending) 100K (or $150 with social security) a year in retirement, and leaving some wealth to their kids, our determination about where we need to start taxing wealth needs to be a good deal north of $2 million.

I'll tell you what I'm advocating and then I'll drop out because you kids are moving to fast for me. I'd phase out social security. Every adult in the US would have a Thrift Savings Account. It would consist of one retirement account that they can't really touch until they retire, and their payroll taxes would feed that, and the government would supplement it such that they had a minimum amount at age 70. The second account would be an account they they could always use in certain pre-established ways and they could always use that for certain benefits related to child care, health care and education. The government would determine how much someone needs to meet their retirement and social welfare needs and those accounts would pay for them. If you made above a certain amount, the govenrment wouldn't supplement your retirement or put in any money into your health and welfare and education accounts. Those supplements would be paid for by progressive taxes on earnings by the wealthier members of society. (Based on my income, I'd enter age 70 with a relatively small retirement Thrift Savings Account, with the expectation that I'd have a 401k that I've grown. I would have paid for most of my kids education on my own. On the other hand, someone who worked at a call center their entire life might have a Thrift Savings retirement account which is triple mine due to subsidies he received. He may have also gotten subsidies for child care and subsidies for his kids college education.) Tax policy would be based upon 1) funding general welfare funds, 2) infrastructure including regulatory agencies and enforcment and 3) national defense. More people with a better and more structured social welfare net will have a positive synergistic effect on the economy and society.

I'll admit, I just made a comment based on one post, but is anyone arguing that there should be a "cap on earnings or potential"? Because that is not what a progressive tax system does. And if anyone is arguing we should go beyond taxing a fraction, rather than the whole, of "earnings", well I am against that.

Sure. The government should absolutely be involved in determining what the poverty and above poverty levels are, and social security and retirement policy should be built around that data. How else would any government handle this, assuming the government had the recognized duty of its citizen's general welfare.

What I meant to say is that I saw UTSA beat Baylor convincingly at that stadium. We might could win.

Saw UTSA beat Baylor at that stadium. We might win convincingly.

This school shit is real. I was eating a sammich and watching a Josh Dickface Hawley question AG Garland for targeting well meaning polite conservative parents of children who just want to speak in respectful tones at school board meetings, and Josh called for AG Garland to resign. True scumbags, all of them.