Stack Exchange
log in

John

 Discussion on question by Eric Buess:…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Jun 25, 2019 03:34
@gormadoc So you mean like, hypothetically, if a household crossed the $82,500 income threshold, and then the second partner's income was taxed at a rate of 24% instead of 22%? I suppose that 2% difference could be a life-altering disaster. Honestly, it sounds like the crux of your scenario is a lot more concerned with the loss of benefits at all, rather than crossing into new tax brackets. You're basically positing that, totally regardless of crossing tax brackets or not, this person is starting out with negative multi-thousand dollar income if they choose to work.
John
Jun 25, 2019 03:34
It doesn't seem clear that you understand how marginal tax rates work. Please see Aasmund Eldhuset's answer. With marginal tax rates, when your income moves into a new, higher bracket, it is not the entirety of your income that is taxed at the higher rate. Only the income you earn that is above the line is taxed at the higher rate.
 

 Discussion between Obie 2.0 and einpo…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Jun 14, 2019 02:42
I agree that peoplespunditdaily is kind of sketchy and that NPR is totally acceptable.
 

 Discussion on answer by Nate Eldredge…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
John
May 14, 2019 22:04
@Johannes Also, anyone who has ridden on a school bus at some point in their lifetime should know that buses stop at railroad crossings. Plus, anyone who has driven behind a bus would know that buses stop at railroad crossings. Any kid who rides in the passenger seat while their parent drives behind a bus would know that they stop at railroad crossings. Anyone who drove behind a bus that has a "stops at railroad crossings sign" knows that they stop at railroad crossings. Basically, it's pretty common knowledge.
John
May 14, 2019 22:04
@Johannes "I wonder if this causes extra accidents as other drivers won't expect that stop or do risky overtake attempts" There is no risk at all, as long as these drivers know how to drive lawfully, slow down when the vehicle in front of them slows down, stop when the vehicle in front of them stops, and refrain from illegal passes into oncoming traffic. Those are basic things that every driver on the road is expected to follow. Buses already drive slow enough and brake gradually enough that avoiding rear-ending them is trivially easy.
 

 Discussion on answer by rinspy: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Apr 4, 2019 22:56
@Hurkyl Instead of the children of Bezos, Gates, Trump, Murdoch, etc. inheriting billions, the money would be spent on public welfare. I'm absolutely certain that my life would be better improved by increased job opportunities, increased scientific innovation, clean energy expansion, and a tax stimulus compared to Rupert Murdoch's kids inheriting his wealth. Nothing good ever comes from the Murdoch family possessing billions of dollars. In quite real terms, quality of life goes way up when we have increased anti-poverty programs, increased job opportunities, etc.
John
Apr 4, 2019 22:56
@jamesqf Which foundation supporting science do the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch fund? What percent of Jeff Bezos's wealth is going to these causes?
John
Apr 4, 2019 22:56
"Is it not better to aim for a society where every family is wealthy, rather than a society with no wealthy families?" You're more likely to achieve a society of universally prosperous people by method of high taxation, high investment in science and engineering research, education, better rehabilitation in prisons, expanding public sector job creation, more infrastructure projects, and public ownership of wall street profits. As long as a few people own nearly all wealth, no one else has any money to invest in stocks or funds.
 

 Discussion on question by CoedRhyfelw…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Apr 3, 2019 05:58
@Cain Some founding fathers may have supported an inheritance tax as well. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/38945/…
 

 Discussion on question by Jared Smith…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Mar 28, 2019 16:41
@JaredSmith my comments don't form a complete answer to arguments for Communism. They are just responses to the criticisms in the OP, which I find to be invalid. An honest criticism against Communism as well as Libertarianism is that neither one can exist; because they don't have enough taxes or authority to keep from devolving into a failed state (which Communism is a non-state by definition, but then how do you prevent crime lords from taking over if you don't have a monopoly on the legitimate use of authority?).
John
Mar 28, 2019 16:41
"Communist countries seem to have worse environmental records than their capitalist counterparts." "Communist countries seem to have lower standards of living in general than their capitalist counterparts." There are no truly Communist countries, so none of this is true. "Communism is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state." Show me a territory, country or otherwise, that is stateless and doesn't use currency; then we can start judging its environmental record.
John
Mar 28, 2019 16:41
"Communist countries seem to tend towards totalitarianism more than their capitalist counterparts." By definition, Communism is stateless. You are confusing Authoritarian Socialism with Communism. It's possible for a totalitarian country to falsely call itself "Communist." Just like it's possible for North Korea to call itself a Democratic Peoples' Republic. However, it's impossible for an actually Communist country to be totalitarian.
 

 Discussion on question by Amelie B. B…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Feb 18, 2019 19:41
@DVK-on-Ahch-To with regard to the mrc source, mediabiasfactcheck categorizes mrc as right-biased with mixed factuality due to: They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
 

 Discussion on answer by Trilarion: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Jan 17, 2019 22:50
"Manufacturing is on the decline while capitalism thrives." I find various flaws in this particular statement. On one hand, there are scarcely any countries at all that are purely Capitalist, or even nearly pure Capitalist. Pure Capitalism isn't thriving. Having said that, to the extent that we label some countries as "Capitalist" when they are really mixed economies or Welfare Capitalism, speaking from my knowledge of American economics, the economy here isn't thriving. 40 million people in poverty, wealth inequality diverging, national debt diverging, middle class keeps shrinking.
 

 Discussion on answer by Jeff Lambert:…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Dec 7, 2018 10:02
"I think you could be overestimating those politicians' overall popularity. Donald Trump wasn't supposed to be elected the first time around" Clinton's favorability spread in 2016 was -12.6 points. Any candidate the DNC nominates in 2020 is likely to have a better favorability spread by possibly dozens of points. So I disagree with your theory that the 2020 candidates won't be substantially more popular than Clinton. realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/… +1 anyway, though.
 

 Discussion on question by grovkin: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Nov 16, 2018 16:52
The state of Florida has to actually count 8 million ballots, and dozens of items per ballot. The Florida state lottery only concerns itself with authenticating winning tickets, they don't have to tabulate each ticket that is purchased. Elections require enforcement on registration, lotteries don't. Elections prohibit multiple voting, lotteries don't. Elections need to certify a secure chain of custody for every ballot, lotteries don't. Voter registration has to enforce citizenship, residency, criminal history requirements, etc.; lotteries don't.
 

 Discussion on question by tim: Are th…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Oct 23, 2018 22:22
Prior to the Southern Realignment of 1964, the Democratic Party was the more socially conservative, racist, and Southern-centric party. They would have been the party more likely to commit voter suppression up until roughly this year. That is why, if I've correctly surmised the intent and assumptions of this question, it should have asked for any examples since 1964. As agc's answer demonstrates, examples prior to 1964 were common and not hard to find.
 

 Discussion on answer by default local…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
John
Sep 9, 2018 19:57
@KamilDrakari Here is a source illustrating that only 937k documents were requested out of an original number of 6-7 million pertaining to his legal career. It points out that, overall, only 4% of documents connected to Kavanaugh have been made public. huffingtonpost.com/entry/…
John
Sep 9, 2018 19:57
Part of the request for documents is to ascertain what his legal positions would be as a justice. This includes trying to discover Kavanaugh's historical opinions on Roe v Wade, and whether they contradict his testified opinions from the hearings. It has been discovered via a leaked e-mail that as a White House counsel, Kavanaugh's opinion on whether Roe v Wade is a settled matter was quite opposite from what he has testified. This validates the desire to review the documents. huffingtonpost.com/entry/…