Total posts: 2,472
Posted in:
2 questions:
1) Would you classify yourself as right wing or left wing?
2) Would you agree to the following compromise:
-AK 47s banned nationwide.
-Abortions banned nationwide.
This nation is divided and people talk about compromises, but I don't see much of it. This is an idea, so do you guys agree to the compromise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
She called cauliflower, "colonizers". That's close to calling a vegetable racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mairj23
Interested in commenting? You should read my rationale before commenting though.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
Christianity condones slavery, Hinduism condones the caste system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
People are just scared of losing their organs when they're dead, as if they would resurrect or something. But the odds of being resurrected from death are extremely slim.
It's just a feeling people have, but facts don't care about your feelings. I would rather save a life then provide a dead person with bodily autonomy. Do you agree or not? If you want to, you may explain why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@estone523
The bill of rights gives us the freedom of religion, so people who do not donate their organs because of their religious beliefs (such as gypsies and native americans) should not be required to sign up for organ donation.
Gypsies historically religiously assimilate to whatever religion is the majority. In the even that they have a Gypsy religion they would want to follow (I wouldn't know what that is) I don't think their religion prohibits them from donating their organs. Same with Native Americans.
The bill of rights also gives us the right to not have any part of our person seized under the 4th amendment; while it sounds crazy to some that the 4th amendment includes the seizure of bodily organs, I think it is a crucial law to help protect the American citizens from exactly what you are suggesting, which is essentially mandatory seizure of organs from a person after death.
The 4th amendment makes an exception for probable cause. The cause for removing one's organs could be death. There could be a law that states that makes an exception to the 4th amendment for dead people. I think they might make your body insecure when professionals pour toxic chemicals in your body to dry it out and to make it last longer., so when you die, either way your body is screwed. The question is; do you reuse the body in order to be able to save someone else's life? Since many people don't get access to life saving organs, this would help save more lives. I would say life is more valuable then the rights of a dead person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
People will always break the law of the alternative consequences to breaking the law is preferable to not breaking the law.
If we punish not paying taxes with jail time, then this would cause people to pay taxes. If it's like that for the rich in America, it ought to be like that for the poor.
I’m finding this hilarious: are you 14?
I am not 14.
Because your understanding of human nature sort of implies you live under a rock.
How do I live under the rock? I know someone who is openly on welfare. However, I want them off of welfare, I want the income tax gone on the basis that it discourages income production, therefore harming our GDP per capita, and I think that those who make money should keep what they earn so thy invest it in more business to make American society better.
All other points dropped. I am not trolling, I just have strong opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
He wants to sentence a signifigant portion of the population to ridiculously reduced living standards, such as litterally living in cardboard boxes
If you can't afford to rent a house on your own, I never recommended a cardboard box. I recommended a tent and I've slept in a tent dozens of times. It's an effective shelter for people that protect them from rain and snow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Sorry about the formatting.
People could increase their hours today for more money, for food: they can move cities for better jobs; or give up these car. They can do it today - but they don’t.Because the employer/manager won't let them because the gov says that if an employee works more then 40 hours a week, then they have to get paid time and a half.Why not? Because in the US you need a carNot if you live within 800 m of work. You just walk to work and back.You need 2000 calories per day, a mix of carbs, fat, protein, and broad set of fresh fruit and vegetables for a healthy diet. Most processed and cheap foot contain little of the latter, and lots of salt and sugar for taste and preservation.Sandwiches made from whole wheat bread tend to be healthy for you. They could eat food that doesn't require refrigeration. They could buy bananas individually, so they don't have to refrigerate them. Peanut butter and banana tastes pretty good. The food they eat is up to them.when food insecurity and poor diets is one of the major problems that come along with poverty.Poverty leads to poor quality, not quantity diets. They can survive off of $50 a week as Gallup has confirmed.So, we know child separation is mentally harmful to childrenThe children benefit in the long term since they find a good family.and from chronic lack of sleep and overworkSince their work isn't as productive to society as the job of a teacher on a per hour basis, they need to work more hours to break even. That's how it works. If Farmers can survive with 5 hours of sleep a night, so can poor people. Since they have 7 hours of free time per day, they'll be able to sleep 8 hours a night and still have 4 hours of mostly free time a day.Worse, you’re supposed to be a ChristianI am an atheist. Even if I was Christian, we don't live in a theocracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
What you don’t get, is that they’re not going to.
They would if they are basically suggested to as a legal means of surviving. People are willing to do a lot if it means surviving.
People aren’t going to voluntarily move into tents, they’re not going to give up their children. They’re not going to get a 12 hour day 360 days a year job.
If they have to contribute to society significantly to survive, they need to do what they gotta do.
People would chose to stay in their house and not pay tax; they’ll turn To cash-in-hand jobs.
They would keep their jobs and continue to get paid. Since they are registered, the government could track them down if they don't pay their taxes like everyone else. This is to get rid of the income tax and to encourage more income production. Income taxes discourage income, which is why the rich ship their money overseas, to escape the taxes.
Forcing people into desperate situations makes them do desperate things.
Like contributing more to society in order to make ends meet. I showed a way for them to have 4-5 digit profits at the end of year with all of their expenses paid for by their salary.
The fact that the law would be enacted on an entire socio-economic group - your peer group, would mean that these people’s friends and families would likely be suffering too.
How would they be suffering if they are making a profit at the end of the year? Right now, poor people are living paycheck to paycheck. Under my plan, they can save for retirement, or they can invest it in stock or something useful instead of spending every penny they earn.
From there, you could either go full on dictatorship: and use tools of the state to enforce your ridiculous plan through mass incarceration
They would pay their taxes, so for the most part, no jail is necessary.
Almost every communist revolution, and the French Revolution was driven primarily by the poor in the country seeing the wealth disparity
Both communist revolutions and the French revolution were driven by the fact that poor people weren't getting enough to eat. I showed how they could get enough to eat under ASTAP.
and believing that the rich are intentionally oppressing the poor. (Which would indeed be the case here).
The rich aren't oppressing the poor under this; they would merely keep what they earned from profit and the poor would keep what they earned from wages.
Poor people could live in tents today. They don’t do it; as it is basically becoming homeless.
A Tent is a place to sleep. If they were homeless, they would sleep on benches or some place outside and if it rains, they're screwed. A Tent protects them from rainfall so it kindof classifies as a home.
You cannot get a bank account, and less so Job without a fixed address
You can get a bank account and a job without owning or renting a house.
lack of clean sanitation and ability to cook and clean clothes is a major health risk
If they eat pre cooked Turkey and Cheese sandwiches or a PB&J or something that doesn't need cooking, they don't need a stove. I showed how they could stay clean body wise. There are laundromats that charge a quarter to wash your clothes. A poor person can go to one of these places to clean their clothes, as what many do already. What's wrong with my solution?
That works out so well right now with homeless people, the few hundred thousand people living rough are ALL able to get jobs, have frequent showers, shave and clean their clothes on a weekly basis with no problems, right? They’re all living the dream!
They don't because they have no job. If they are forced to pay taxes like what most other people have to pay, and if they are encouraged to get a job to pay these expenses, then the government could force them to get jobs in order to pay for themselves without welfare. I don't want to subsidize the existence of lazy people unwilling to get a job.
No. That’s not how people work. Imagine a dirty individual walking up to your house and asking to take a shower. Most people would say no.
Imagine a person who looks normal, they just haven't showered in a day and they offer you a dollar just to shower in your house for 10 minutes. You remove everything that they might want to steal from the room, and you let them shower for the 10 minutes, they pay you $1, and the homeowner just made $1 profit for renting out their shower.
Worse; if they say yes it is likely because they agree that they recognize they have been forced into that position by the government: that doesn’t bode well for the government...
If they say yes, they might want the $1.
Poor people could give up their kids today for Adoption they don’t. If they aren’t doing it now, what makes you do think they’ll do it with your plan?
Because if the poor people have more kids, they get more in welfare. Under this plan, the poor stop having kids they don't need and they stay in touch with their existing kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You're asking 15 million people to do it with little respite in the entire year. Not for money, or out of specific immediate necessity:
It's because that's all they can afford without welfare. I think we need to eliminate welfare completely because it makes poor people dependent on the government and rich people without the consent of rich people.
The option this “plan” gives people, is to live in a tent, give up your children, and work 12 hour days, and lose your car, and eat junk food for each meal.
They would have the option on whether or not to buy a car, but they can afford a used car under this proposal in some situations. They wouldn't have to eat junk food for each meal, but they just would have to eat cheap food. For example, you can make sandwiches pretty cheaply and those can be pretty healthy.
Im sorry but you’re an idiot if you think any reasonable parent is going to be faced with a choice between paying taxes and keeping their child, and chose taxes
If the parents are told that their kids would benefit from the adoption system, then the parents would do what's best for the kid.
I am certain your trolling.
Although I am willing to admit that my tax plan is very right wing, I'm not trolling. I'm just very far right on taxes and think that the income tax should be abolished.
You’re not a parent right? Why don’t you ask a few parents what they think about that. Parents may give up their kids because of extreme poverty, or violence.
The poor in America aren't living in extreme poverty. Under my system, they are still making about as much as the average, the average person from Quebec, and that's our poor people making the average amount as a typical person from a 1st world province.
Most of the population would think the law was unfair.
Right now, most of the population is in support of the income tax, but with this alternative being brought to pay for things, many people would be on board with it, mainly conservatives. I don't see what's wrong with living in a tent and working 12 hour days with no kids if you manage to keep significant amounts of money afterwards. ASTAP has been updated.
you will end up with revolt.
If people are shown how they can survive under this system, and if that survival guide is reasonable, then the poor people would be like, "Okay, we can do this".
It’s literally how the French Revolution and the Communists Came to power.
Both were from monarchies that weren't accountable to the will of the people. Both also banned things like free speech, which resorted to violence. Once the populous supports the idea (which there are a lot of ideas that were/are unpopular that became popular, like the wall and homosexuality), then it can happen. If the poor people are shown how they can thrive under ASTAP, they would be willing to support it.
Shop Sandwiches are almost always high in sugar, high in salt and lacking in basic nutrition.
Sandwiches can be healthy for you if it's PB&J, Turkey and Cheese or something like that.
Do you understand the nutritional content an individual needs to remain healthy?
To an extent. I'm not a food expert, but I know some stuff about it.
Seperarion of children from loving, primary care givers causes major long term harm to the mental health of the children.
If the kid stays in contact with their parents by email or text or something like that, the kid won't miss out too much. Besides, in 2 years on average, they would get a new family, one that is better for them since that family is more financially stable.
Ignoring the sheer impossibility of increasing the size of foster care by a factor of 40; the anger and resentment it would foster in the population, and the fact you’re substantially damaging an entire generation of children that will likely face severe emotional issues with adults and don’t seem to appreciate the damage that if will do the country
Once the kids find a new family, they would be fine. So this nation won't be damaged.
You’ve made a serious of largely nonsensical claims that ignores the basics of human nature, and reality.
People will comply with the tax system if they are shown how to live with the new tax system. The poor won't get that screwed over, the parents would do what's best for the kid, and it enables the poor people to make some profit at the end of the year, which they can use for investments, like stock.
You’re expecting the entire population affected to simply do what you say because, well, just because.
Because I want to abolish the income tax and I want to abolish welfare.
If you think this is credible, and plausible; then I’m fairly certain that you’re going to have issues dealing with the world.
I think it can work. I work with the world just fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
The suggestion that people can live off 5 hours sleep
My Dad does it. Many farmers do it. It's hard at first, but just takes adjusting. They could use that 7 hours of extra time they have partly for a nap.
have six days off a year
I have 2 basic options for them. Option 1 is 5 days off a year. Option 2 is 25 days off a year.
people would refuse to pay taxes,
People may protest the taxes, but they would pay them. It's better then our current tax system, a tax system that discourages income production by taxing it.
Enforcement would be impossible, and you’d find the poor working for barter, not earning anything and not paying taxes as they have no money
I have disproved this fear mongering.
You know, parents tend not to want to give up their kids.
Parents want what's best for their kids; often putting their kid's lives before their own. If this means setting them up for adoption with the intention of providing them with a better life, then the parents ought to be willing to do this.
Basically, your looking at systemic collapse of the entire US capitalist system
This policy enhances capitalism because it enables people to keep what they earn and then get taxed on things that are neutral or bad for society.
eat nothing but fast food.
They could buy food from stop and shop, but it would have to be cheap and they would basically have to make it on their own. They could have sandwiches for example. Those can be healthy and they are cheap to make.
you think it’s practical to ask 15 million families to give up their children
I don't want to pay for their parasitic families. I would rather use the foster system, which is temporary and sets the kids up for a better life with a better family. The original parents can still hang out with the kid, they just wouldn't take care of a kid they couldn't afford.
All other points that I made were dropped. You are appealing to feelings. Facts don't care about your feelings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
and seem to not realize the issue of hygiene and lack of address is not conducive to keeping a job.
My suggestion to overcome this is they could shower in another person's house(if that person consents) and the poor person could pay 25 cents or something to shower 1 time in another person's shower. The homeowner makes a profit, the poor person gets clean.
Not only that, you’re forcing the poor - who likely can’t buy or maintain a car due to cost, to find work within walking distance (which given my time living in the US, walking distance is about 200m), massively limiting options.
Walking distance is farther then 200 m. I would say that it is around 800m. That's a 10-15 minute walk for them.
Of course, you don’t seem to account for the increased costs of an adoption and foster system - which is now going to be 40 times larger than it is today, nor the social fall out of how these systems on balance inhibit the potential of the individuals.
I'm fine with the adoption system's cost going up. It's short term welfare. In about 2 years on average, the kids would find a new home if the adoption agencies advertise more until they get rid of all their kids and levels are back to normal, except this time poor people aren't having kids they can't afford. To prevent them from having kids and to save money on welfare, I would be fine with neutering all people who fail to pay a reproduction matience tax that I should add to ASTAP in order to prevent more kids from being on welfare. This benefits the poor person because there is less holding them back from having unrestricted sex.
Your also not accounting for the health problems associated with over work, crippling stress
Jobs at McDonalds aren't stressful. They're more boring I imagine.
emotional trauma of having to give up your children
Since the parents would be told that their kids were going to find a better life, the parents would probably understand. If they want to stay in touch with their kids, they can share email addresses and they can stay in contact that way, while the kid is in the foster system.
remain socially isolated due to having to work all but 1.5 hours every single day for your entire life
They would work 12 hours a day, have 5 hours of sleep a day, and have 7 hours a day for everything else. Everything else seems like it wouldn't take a significant amount of time. They have a little under 7 hours of free time a day to do whatever they want.
Given that social isolation raises risks of suicide; it’s not looking good for poor people is it!
They are not being isolated. They can talk with:
-Their manager.
-Their coworkers.
-Anybody that they encounter in the 7 hours of free time they have in a day.
-Their kids via email if their employer is okay with that as a perk.
-Their spouse.
They aren't being isolated from society.
Let’s not forget they can eat fast food. 3 meals a day, 360 days, even coming in cheap at $3 per meal, that adds up to what? $3600 - that’s $1000 more than you have in your spreadsheet.
Maybe they could eat something other then fast food. Given that 8% of the nation spends less then $50 a week on food, they can spend $50 a week on food, just like what 8% of the population does less then. This doesn't mean that they receive less food or the food is of lower nutritional value, but it could mean that they could just not eat out at restaurants, since those are expensive.
as has happened in literally every country where the oppression of the poor rises to the insanity you’re suggesting.
Most countries are from a fiscal standpoint, left wing of the US. Countries have poor masses and revolts because of fiscally left wing policies. Look at Venezuela and Cuba. China is communist, they would have protest if it were legal. Africa is fiscally left wing. America is one of the most, if not the absolute most fiscally conservative country in the planet and we have the highest GDP in the world, one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world. The poor aren't oppressed, especially under ASTAP. If they were oppressed, then how would they be making the profits that they are making under ASTAP? They make over $6,000 in profit once all other expenses are paid before 2023 according to the new model. ASTAP isn't perfect, but I'm willing to make some changes to it if they are good changes.
is almost as ridiculous as the idea that all rapists can work as trained construction workers
To the best of my knowledge, being a construction worker doesn't require much training. It merely is hard work, which is why the job pays somewhat well. There are highschoolers that I know that do construction work and that is with no college or scholarly training whatsoever.
work 70 years to pay a ridiculous victim tax.
It's not 70 years if they rape once. If they rape once, it's 25 years of labor.(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit?ts=5ce7ac53#gid=971426790)
I have to question your sanity.
Ad hommin attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
“Temporarily”. So, let’s say you find a way to get rapists to earn money. Somehow. Minimum wage for 12 hour days
They're job would be too hard for minimum wage. It could be as a construction worker or something, which pays a much higher wage(I think it's $14.9 an hour)(https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Construction_Worker/Hourly_Rate). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit?ts=5ce7ac53#gid=971426790 shows how the rapist can pay for all of this if they have raped once or twice. Beyond that, I probably would prescribe harder work for the rapist so more revenue comes in or a public execution that would have ticket sales that would generate the lost revenue that the state was entitled too under this law.
Congratulations: you’ve now given every teenager and every young adult a massively compelling motive not to get tested for an STD. This will have the complete opposite effect that you’re proposing. Which should be obvious.
Under this tax law, once it comes into effect, everyone would be required to get tested for STDs the next time they see a doctor. If they have an STD, they pay the tax or get it treated.
Some people have children, and must find a job that have hours that are less than 12-16 per day.
If you can't afford to have kids on your own, the gov would encourage you to set the kid(s) up for adoption.
This is not even considering the retired, housewives, and students that don’t even participate in the workforce.
The retired have social security that would help the retired out. Housewives can work. Students can also work. I heard college is very unstructured and many people get a job while doing school so they can pay the taxes from that.
But it is nice that you would recommend any other human being work 12 hour days 360 days a year.
Only those on minimum wage have to work that hard to pay off the debt because compared to a CEO or a doctor, their job is not very productive to society on a per hour basis.
People have kids, they have to pay for child care; they have to see friends, family, relax, they need time to reach their jobs.
If they can't afford kids, they should set the kids up for adoption. If they work 12 hours a day, if they live close to work, and sleep 5 hours a day (something they can get used too, farmers do it. My Dad does it. It just needs a little adjusting), then they have 7 hours of additional time per day to do whatever they want/need to do.
Food prep and eating/cleaning up time 60 minutes
They can eat fast food since it's cheap, keeps them alive, and is quick to get and to clean up.
I mean good lord man: you are not serious here? You’re tying to troll us, right?
I'm not trolling. I'm just very fiscally conservative, so I'm trying to get rid of the income tax. If a cigarette tax discourages smoking and if an alcohol tax discourages alcohol consumption, then an income tax discourages income making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
It seems that your developing 1st place syndrome. Don't worry, it happens to many people who get 1st on this site. It happened to RM.
Anyway:
I like the 1.25m rape Tax, because if there’s one thing we know about rapists, it’s that they’re all millionaires.
The rapist would get enslaved temporarily in order to pay off their debt to society. What they would do is up to the prisons and up to the states to decide.
I almost like it as much as the STD tax - because, we all know everyone with an STD is going to rush to get tested for STDs now that they come with multiple hundred dollar penalties.
If this happens, then STDs would be eradicated from society. Or they just pay the $200 and continue to have STDs. Lets say for the sake of argument that virtually everyone gets their STDs treated(exception applies for incurable STDs). Then we just increase the taxes in a different category.
Or maybe the $12k per person charge is the best, because the one thing we know about the unemployed, the retired, those in poverty, those supporting multiple adults on minimum jobs, is that they can afford thousands of dollars in extra tax per year.
The unemployed can get a job. Stop and Shop is always hiring. I know from personal experience.
No I have it! The best bit of this is that poor people will have no problem paying the $12k tax because they can just live in a tent and work 12 hour days for the entire year with the except Christmas, Boxing Day. Easter Sunday, labour day and Presidents’ Day.Their lazy asses need to work 12 hours on New Year’s Eve and Day though. And when they’re sick..
I packed in 5 sick days for them per year. They would have to work on the holidays since the shops would be busier then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
They're both right wing symbols generally. Shapiro is cool.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If the accusation is false and brought to court, the "victim" gets the penalty that the "rapist" would have received.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I don't know. I heard that it's around 97% which is shockingly high. However at least for rape, if the victim gets a $250,000 reward, it would increase the number and percentage of rapists that get punished.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
He hates women obviously and is some what ok with rape since the thinks some random rapists has millions when we can't collect on 500 buck in restitution in most cases.
Groundless accusation. I want the woman who gets raped to get $250,000 in restitution paid for by the rapist. Most rapists aren't that rich. The rapist would have other consequences as well. If a rich rapist is married and he gets caught with a rape, his wife would be pretty alienated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Whatever would be useful. Given that they don't treat your body pretty basically by pouring drying chemicals in it, your body won't be treated well either way. Why not help society with it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Giving organs only to those that opt to donate them is a good idea, but if you care about your own body, then you won't get the help you would need in some instances. I would rather save lives then expose hypocrisy.
plus it's rare but sometimes they take organs from someone who isn't completely dead or who might have a chance for revival.
Only bodies that are declared dead by doctors are harvested for organs. The odds of some person resurrecting from the dead is extremely low and does not compensate the amount of lives that get saved by the policy.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not hailing him but I do congratulate Ramshutu for beating me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
You have a tax on needy children.
Where?
And you expect the housing market to shift to tents, shanties and apartment boxes
Shanties are dangerous, so not those. I don't know what an apartment box is.
You expect the poor to work 15 hours a day.
12 hours a day. I found a way for them to survive off of 12 hours of work a day.
I predict the cumulative effect is that an underclass of people become completely dependant on their employers, assuming they have employment.
I don't think that's the case by it's self.
Probably no land, no time to think for themselves, no wheels, few skills.
They would have time to think for themselves. Not sure about the "no wheels" part. That is up to the person if they are willing to pay for a used or new car. If they live close to work, they won't need a car.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I believe in the death penalty for murder, high treason, and maybe serial rape. Not all my rules have the death penalty as the punishment. An example is weed. If you get caught smoking weed, you should pay a fine, at least for now. If Canada's weed experiment yields good results, it can be legal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I believe in freedom/small government on:
-Guns
-Homosexuality
-Insurance
-Religion
-Military
-Ideology
-Possibly more things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Should they be punished for the rest of their life for actions they never committed?
I wouldn't think of it as a punishment. I would think of it as an incentive to get the STD treated so they become less common in society, making it better. Also, it ignores the people who get an STD from sex. It's not a big punishment for adults either; $200.
Also, couldn't someone claim that the kid they had wasn't an accident even if they were? It seems like an easy system to game.
I have 2 thoughts on this:
1) If they weren't married, it would be safe to assume the kid was by accident. When going to the doctor that provides the delivery, they would ask for proof of marriage, like a ring or photograph. If there is none, they get charged an extra $5000 for the delivery. This money goes to the federal government.
The other taxes are probably not going to raise a lot of revenue in the long term.
They would in the long term. People will still use gas, people would still smoke and drink. If rape rates fall, that's a good thing. People will still commit adultery. They are not big taxes, so people would probably just pay the fine and continue to do what they do.
The rise of electric vehicles and hybrid cars definitely will have an impact on gas consumption as well, particularly if the gas tax is raised to 75 cents a gallon.
The rise of the gas tax won't have much of an impact on gas consumption. Most people would just accept the higher gas payments. We've had higher gas prices. I don't know if this has happened in Kentucky, but in my state, the gas tax was about $1.30 per gallon and it didn't discourage gas buying. The current gas tax is around 30 cents a gallon. 75 cents per gallon is somewhere in the middle.
The tax could deter purchases of less fuel efficient cars in favor of more fuel efficient cars.
It barely does, if at all.
The average price of a gallon of gasoline in March of 2019 was $2.50.
That's including tax. Add 55 cents per gallon and a 12 gallon fill up would cost $6.30 extra per fill up. If people don't notice the change from a $1 increase in the price, they won't notice it much from a 55 cent increase.
1 in 3 households faced challenges paying their energy bill in 2015 according to the EIA (5). The Americans most likely to spend more of their income on fuel happen to be in the lowest quintile of income earners in the US averaging about 10% of their income being spent on fuel (6).
Poor people often don't pay for their own electricity bill. If they have a renting cost too high, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit#gid=320988619 shows how poor people can afford ASTAP if the have a minimum wage job.
Growth rates for wine and spirits are declining, and beer sales are decreasing by about 1.5% (7). One reason for this is likely the increase in medical marijuana, which researcher directly linked with declining alcohol sales (8).
I didn't include weed sales because I didn't know how much revenue they would produce. Once Canada tests it out for us, and once they confirm that it won't wreck society after 5 years or some time like that, the US can give it a try.
A $2 excise tax might push consumers away too.
When people buy beer, they are thinking about how many beers they want I imagine. They'll probably notice the extra beer prices and reluctantly pay the extra money.
The rape portion of the tax system seems unattainable. How do we guarantee that every rapist has over a million dollars to pay the state? If they don't have the money, then what happens? Are we going to garnish their wages? Well, since rapists are unlikely to find jobs, that wont be effective.
I'm honestly willing to enslave rapists until the wages they would have received for their work pay for the rape they committed if they don't have the money up front. This way, the wages they generate from their slavery can restitute the state for what they would have spent on labor.
I think that the details need to be ironed out before this tax system becomes solvent though.
It's not perfect, but I think it's better then the establishment right wing or left wing tax plan. Both plans are based around income, which discourages money making. We need something that discourages bad things instead of discouraging income. We need something where everyone contributes equally to the tax plan, whether rich or poor. Since many people think the poor can't afford the tax plan, I made a spreadsheet showing how they could. The link is below:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I don't know. I've heard in passing that the body is relevant to the afterlife according to some ways
It's not. If there is a religion that is against organ donating, then members of that religion may be given an exemption, but only members of said religion would get the exemption. It would be pretty rare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Doctors would be a little hypocritical since they too by their own logic would be bags of meat. They wouldn't see half of the already organ donor population as bags of meat. When your dead, so what? You don't have feelings when your dead. Plus, one organ donor saves up to 8 lives.
Also, what we will in life is something that shouldn't be simply dismissed.
Fiscally, you have a point. However, there are 3 options for dead bodies:
1) Their organs are donated.
2) Chemicals that you would never put into your body are put into dead people that dries the body out.
3) Cremation.
#1 isn't good for your body, but neither are the other 2 options. At least #1 benefits other people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Maybe religious reasons
What religion prohibits the practice?
because they don't want doctors to look at them like a bag of fresh meat
When they're dead, why would they care? I know I won't care when I'm dead because I'll be dead.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
why is specialization the magical point of human life?
Because that's when the baby has the cells needed to be a human?
at this earliest point, isn't this just a bunch of snow balls compared to a snow man?
At an earlier point, it's just snow.
also, human life is defined to end with a heart beat and brain waves ceasing, so why not when those things begin?
The heart beat starts at 6 weeks(https://www.bing.com/search?q=when+does+a+heartbeat+start+in+fetus&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN). Brainwaves start at a similar time(https://www.bing.com/search?q=when+do+brainwaves+start+in+fetus&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=when+do+brainwave+start+in+fetus&sc=2-32&sk=&cvid=021A341055FA49BC82FDE21DDD341807).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you propose enforcing this policy?
I want people that have premarital sex to pay a fine that the parents should pay for. I don't know how to enforce it, but merely making it illegal is bound to reduce premarital sex by some extent. Some people would pay the fine.
It is called a fetus from the eighth week of conception.Ok, are you suggesting that you approve of abortion before the 8th week?
From what I've read, the border isin't the 8th week but the 6th week.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
My view of women is people that need to wait until marriage for sex and not give any boy any opportunity for sex until he marries her consensually. This minimizes the spread of STDs and prevents pregnancy.Is that just a personal opinion, or is that a policy proposal?
Both.
Ok, so do you also believe that throwing embryos in the trash is as bad as murdering a handful of 25 year olds?
Not embryos, but killing and trashing priorly living fetuses that were killed is as bad as murdering 25 year olds and disposing of the bodies. If you look at pictures of abortion, you might agree with that.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i'm a little extreme in that i dont want to punish women at all, but there aren't many pro lifers who would get into serious punishment for abortion.
Donald Trump does. Ben Shapiro does. It's a prominent position. Also, since I'm kindof very conservative, I don't care if 1% of the population agrees with me. My beliefs are my beliefs. Despite this, I do have an open mind and I'm willing to convince others on it and vice versa if the rationale is strong enough.
how are you so sure that a fertilized egg is a person?
I don't believe this. I think you become a human at 3 to 5 weeks, when the cells specialize.
For everyone that has had legal abortions, they wouldn't get punished. There is a lot of crazy stuff people would do if it was legal. However, once it becomes illegal, examples would be made and it could virtually eradicate abortion in America, which both the left and the right want to do. Lets do it.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
My view of women is people that need to wait until marriage for sex and not give any boy any opportunity for sex until he marries her consensually. This minimizes the spread of STDs and prevents pregnancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I would keep people on life support alive for as long as the person who is on life support priorly wanted to be. Insurance pays for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Comparing the living and the dead. Wrong. Comparing the unborn and the dead.
The unborn are living.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
actually that's a great argument, you no longer have any rights......interesting.
If I were dead, you'd be correct. But I'm not dead yet. It's good enough to be a monty python skit.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If the unborn have rights the dead should too.
If women don't have bodily autonomy when another's life is at stake, neither should a dead person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I guess there could be some religious reasons as to why someone would be against that.
I don't think there's a single religion out there that prohibits organ donation.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think murdering an old person is as bad as murdering a 25 year old. Otherwise, the penalty for murdering an old person would be less then a 25 year old. But all murder is callous. All murder is evil and all murder must be stopped.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
At death, your correct. At death, you own nothing.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Are the cells in the embryo specialized? If not, then it's basically cancer. If it is, then it should be illegal to discard extra embryos. Find some woman who is willing to be pregnant for 9 months or just don't create as many embryos. I don't know if this is your field of work and if it is, you know more then I do on this so you might clear things up if I get things wrong.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There should be proof that the person will not recover in a time period of lets say 10 years before I would be okay with pulling the plug on them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Why would people opt out?
Created: