OK, I guess that’s fair. But I still think the details matter
“Murdered a Sackler who happened one of ten victims of a mass shooting” is different from “murdered Richard Sackler because my son overdosed on opioids”.
This is how I saw it. Needs more info.
I suppose the gist of the question was getting at whether you would jury nullify for an obvious murder which is kind of interesting I guess for really bad people who deserve to die.
Depends which Sackler and why.
Also, this is really good:
2 Likes
Am I crazy for not giving any kind of a fuck about HR1? I seriously don’t understand being optimistic about it at all. A final version capable of passing with 50+1 is going to be watered down to garbage, and any good bits will get thrown out by the USSC.
2 Likes
Well, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to protect voting rights. The 15th Amendment reads:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[[2]]
The Supreme Court obviously has the power to strike down HR 1 anyway, but if they’re willing to do that, nothing matters.
2 Likes
Isn’t there is a very strong positive correlation between income and miles driven per year. Seems like a tax that would effect those with progressively more money.
Even if thats true (I have no idea) it is terrible politically. It will take Republicans about 5 seconds to find an endless supply of sympathetic working class people who get hammered. And even if they somehow means test the tax, it will be a huge political loser for Democrats.
Enough with this shit. Find a way to tax Jeff Bezos, it shouldn’t be that hard. Just pound away on the fact that he’s paid literally zero taxes on his $180,000,000,000 fortune.
Also he’s a piece of shit and everyone hates him, right and left. He’s a union busting billionaire and a fake news publisher who cancels people. The left and the right both hate his ass. Just like Zuckerberg, there’s no one on earth (who isn’t being paid) who will stan for that robot freak.
2 Likes
Sure but I don’t see what one has to do with the other. Also transposition doesn’t set income taxes.
Taxing driving is a good idea given climate change too.
1 Like
I think it would depend a lot on implementation (just off the top of my head I can think of a few ways that might allow companies to subsidize managers/executives).
Also how are you defining progressive? Even assuming that a rich family drives more than a poor one, the marginal impact on a rich family (for whom more of the trips might be voluntary ) seems like it would be less than the impact on someone who is living paycheck to paycheck but relies on a vehicle to get to work or get groceries.
1 Like
Just start the tax at some preset income or mileage level. Regressivness solved.
No. Overall car expenses are very regressive because operating expenses aren’t orders of magnitude greater for nicer cars and more miles. For example, liability insurance costs are basically the same for everyone.
2 Likes
Reality has a well known regressive bias
4 Likes
Ok but I don’t see what this has to do with my point?
I’m saying it’s a positive correlation between income and miles driven so a tax based on miles would be higher the more money you made
Yeah but we should be encouraging electric vehicles, not figuring out a way to subsidize gas guzzlers by implementing a mileage tax that taxes an EV at the same rate as a pickup truck that gets 12 miles to the gallon.
2 Likes
One could read that as implying that the right of citizens to vote may be denied or abridged for reasons other than race, color, or previous conditions of servitude (unless otherwise specified in the Constitution). Conservative jurisprudence has generally been stingy about granting unenumerated rights.
I’m still not convinced. Those Sacklers were no angels. It was probably self defense.
2 Likes
Note that the mileage for 10k people is around a third of the 100k people, while the income is only 10%.
1 Like
That is a point of regression for sure but seems easy to account for in a tax.
Anyway, I don’t really care about this tax as it is never going to happen. Just felt like people were knee jerk hating on pete without looking at the data.
1 Like