Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Montana: "Let's make stupidity mandatory!"
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 14:57:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <aboiojhq7b6th9emr12n6o9ros9toi28jo@4ax.com>
References: <vlucc7$no2f$1@dont-email.me> <lug4mgFpjv6U1@mid.individual.net> <vm451d$22j2f$1@dont-email.me> <vm4i4q$24jb4$1@dont-email.me> <vm6t2c$2kn8p$1@dont-email.me> <7ORhP.796214$DYF8.668936@fx14.iad> <c71gojd4tdvlc125jqm3lvk53a22rs62hk@4ax.com> <vm944i$33bk6$1@dont-email.me> <vm9g32$35ll5$2@dont-email.me> <vm9h7s$35fip$2@dont-email.me> <vm9qro$371vt$6@dont-email.me> <lpvgoj52kh72k7rcfldm5og9g8jrodplgg@4ax.com> <vmb4ho$3hj9k$2@dont-email.me> <vmbbnv$3iko8$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:57:28 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d00eea0b02a158238954a41e3235185";
	logging-data="3840060"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Yg33DyaAA/aGbiQMfxvWE5s61m2oIbIM="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aMhgzBqHLj+BTOklPEPR91j62zE=
Bytes: 5999

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