Page 130 of 134
Re: William Penn
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:18 pm
by Ken
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 9:43 pmIn other words, they drive up rents and the cost of housing and cost of living. That isn’t a win.
So make it legal to build more housing. Doing that keeps rents down and provides more jobs.
Oh wait, if I remember correctly, you told us the reason we can't do that had something to do with pit bulls. I forgot.
Re: William Penn
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:28 pm
by Josh
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:18 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 9:43 pmIn other words, they drive up rents and the cost of housing and cost of living. That isn’t a win.
So make it legal to build more housing. Doing that keeps rents down and provides more jobs.
Oh wait, if I remember correctly, you told us the reason we can't do that had something to do with pit bulls. I forgot.
It’s legal to build more housing, and in most of America’s land mass there are virtually no restrictions at all.
I did say I don’t want people moving in who keep violent pitbulls. You keep saying how important walkable communities are. Want to keep them that way? Having violent dogs on the loose is the #1 reason I won’t walk somewhere.
Re: William Penn
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:57 pm
by Ken
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:28 pm
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:18 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 9:43 pmIn other words, they drive up rents and the cost of housing and cost of living. That isn’t a win.
So make it legal to build more housing. Doing that keeps rents down and provides more jobs.
Oh wait, if I remember correctly, you told us the reason we can't do that had something to do with pit bulls. I forgot.
It’s legal to build more housing, and in most of America’s land mass there are virtually no restrictions at all.
I did say I don’t want people moving in who keep violent pitbulls. You keep saying how important walkable communities are. Want to keep them that way? Having violent dogs on the loose is the #1 reason I won’t walk somewhere.
Then you should seek out neighborhoods with new apartments. Because if there is one thing you can be certain about. No new apartment complex under professional management would ever allow a pit bull anywhere near. Where you find pit bulls are in rural areas and in working class single family neighborhoods where there are no management company to forbid them.
Re: William Penn
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:58 pm
by Josh
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:57 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:28 pm
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:18 pm
So make it legal to build more housing. Doing that keeps rents down and provides more jobs.
Oh wait, if I remember correctly, you told us the reason we can't do that had something to do with pit bulls. I forgot.
It’s legal to build more housing, and in most of America’s land mass there are virtually no restrictions at all.
I did say I don’t want people moving in who keep violent pitbulls. You keep saying how important walkable communities are. Want to keep them that way? Having violent dogs on the loose is the #1 reason I won’t walk somewhere.
Then you should seek out neighborhoods with new apartments. Because if there is one thing you can be certain about. No new apartment complex under professional management would ever allow a pit bull anywhere near. Where you find pit bulls are in rural areas and in working class single family neighborhoods where there are no management company to forbid them.
I take it you haven’t been around fancy new apartment complexes recently.
Re: William Penn
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2024 11:19 pm
by Ken
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:58 pm
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:57 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:28 pm
It’s legal to build more housing, and in most of America’s land mass there are virtually no restrictions at all.
I did say I don’t want people moving in who keep violent pitbulls. You keep saying how important walkable communities are. Want to keep them that way? Having violent dogs on the loose is the #1 reason I won’t walk somewhere.
Then you should seek out neighborhoods with new apartments. Because if there is one thing you can be certain about. No new apartment complex under professional management would ever allow a pit bull anywhere near. Where you find pit bulls are in rural areas and in working class single family neighborhoods where there are no management company to forbid them.
I take it you haven’t been around fancy new apartment complexes recently.
I ride my bike by dozens of new and newish apartment complexes every day on the way to and from work. Mostly brand new modest working class type apartment complexes. I see no pit bulls at all and very few dogs of any kind. Just lots of kids waiting for the bus.
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2024 12:08 am
by Judas Maccabeus
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:30 am
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:49 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:44 am
Yes, and now we have a gargantuan federal government with a gargantuan national debt, with a completely unsustainable future.
Actually we do not have an unsustainable future. Just raise taxes.
Social security is an example. Removing the $168,000 cap on income for the social security tax would make it sustainable forever. All income taxed equally.
The problem is that many really do not pay their fair share, many do pay at all.
I would love to see how much each presidential candidate paid…..
Removing the cap amounts to raising marginal rates 15%; the net effect is the tiny fraction of people who make that much would find other ways to arrange their compensation or business affairs.
There are ways to prevent this. It is called shirking one’s duty to society.
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2024 9:37 am
by Josh
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 12:08 am
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:30 am
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:49 pm
Actually we do not have an unsustainable future. Just raise taxes.
Social security is an example. Removing the $168,000 cap on income for the social security tax would make it sustainable forever. All income taxed equally.
The problem is that many really do not pay their fair share, many do pay at all.
I would love to see how much each presidential candidate paid…..
Removing the cap amounts to raising marginal rates 15%; the net effect is the tiny fraction of people who make that much would find other ways to arrange their compensation or business affairs.
There are ways to prevent this. It is called shirking one’s duty to society.
Rich people run society and politics, and they are pretty good at keeping their tax bill from going up too much. In addition, trying to tax high incomes is messier than you think - many of them get their high income via capital gains (which doesn’t contribute to fica at all) or via complex stock options, which aren’t subject to withholding the way regular wages are. For an example, we haven’t even fixed classifying carried interest as ordinary income instead of capital gains.
Trying to “soak the rich” via wage taxes simply means even more of their compensation will shift to things that take the form of stock options, stock grants, carried interest, and other things that can be categorised as capital gains. The idea you can just magically raise a tax and people won’t find legal ways to avoid it is a pipe dream.
P.S. I should have said it would raise marginal rates 12.4%. Given how little money is being raised with the 3.8% Medicare surtax, we can surmise how little raising the SS cap would raise. And ultimately, social security was supposed to be something people paid into and then got paid out according to their contributions. The way to fix SS is to stop the ridiculous amount of SSDI and SSI payouts.
I live next to an otherwise personable gentleman in his 50s who is somehow on SSDI. He lives with his mother in her 80s. His grandchildren somehow get SSDI or SSI in a “hereditary” fashion, because his daughter gets it too. Thus he sits around the house and doesn’t work except for odd jobs he can do for cash.
This is basically a way of life for many people. On Thursday my wife went with some other ladies from church to help sew some dresses for someone a friend of mine has been inviting to their church. This woman is also on SSDI/SSI and has a kid on it as well. Her mom takes care of the kid but collects the disability check plus all the other welfare benefits (Medicaid, SNAP, WIC and so on). She seemed perfectly capable of working.
It simply doesn’t work to pay people not to work.
Re: William Penn
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:47 pm
by ken_sylvania
RZehr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:40 pm
My argument is that if the welfare state didn’t exist, the civilians would be more likely to welcome migrants. Or at least be more apathetic.
And if they were more welcoming to migrants, it wouldn’t be such an obtuse political football.
And if it wasn’t such a political problem, maybe we would have a better, legal, open, immigration system.
Migrant welfare isn’t here nor there for myself. I think there shouldn’t be fraud anywhere in the country at any level. But if it’s legal, and needed, meet the need.
I’m just making an observation on the different dynamics today than in history.
I think the opposition to immigrants has more to do with a certain fear that one's society, culture, or livelihood might be displaced by that of the immigrants. The Germans, Irish, and Chinese all faced hostility when the immigrated in large numbers.
Re: William Penn
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:52 pm
by RZehr
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:47 pm
RZehr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:40 pm
My argument is that if the welfare state didn’t exist, the civilians would be more likely to welcome migrants. Or at least be more apathetic.
And if they were more welcoming to migrants, it wouldn’t be such an obtuse political football.
And if it wasn’t such a political problem, maybe we would have a better, legal, open, immigration system.
Migrant welfare isn’t here nor there for myself. I think there shouldn’t be fraud anywhere in the country at any level. But if it’s legal, and needed, meet the need.
I’m just making an observation on the different dynamics today than in history.
I think the opposition to immigrants has more to do with a certain fear that one's society, culture, or livelihood might be displaced by that of the immigrants. The Germans, Irish, and Chinese all faced hostility when the immigrated in large numbers.
For sure that is another consideration. But nobody today wants to be painted a racist. So racist, and cultural arguments have to be more careful and wouldn’t have as much purchase in a social environment that is preaching the strength, benefits, and necessity of diversity.
I’m not blaming welfare for all of immigration. I’m just saying it is one of several draws, and one of several flashpoints against.
And more specifically, I’m pointing out that it is a factor at play today, that was not a factor 100+ years ago. While as you point out, other factors such as race and culture are more or less a constant, both today, and 100+ years ago.
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2024 10:37 pm
by Judas Maccabeus
Josh wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 9:37 am
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 12:08 am
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:30 am
Removing the cap amounts to raising marginal rates 15%; the net effect is the tiny fraction of people who make that much would find other ways to arrange their compensation or business affairs.
There are ways to prevent this. It is called shirking one’s duty to society.
Rich people run society and politics, and they are pretty good at keeping their tax bill from going up too much. In addition, trying to tax high incomes is messier than you think - many of them get their high income via capital gains (which doesn’t contribute to fica at all) or via complex stock options, which aren’t subject to withholding the way regular wages are. For an example, we haven’t even fixed classifying carried interest as ordinary income instead of capital gains.
Trying to “soak the rich” via wage taxes simply means even more of their compensation will shift to things that take the form of stock options, stock grants, carried interest, and other things that can be categorised as capital gains. The idea you can just magically raise a tax and people won’t find legal ways to avoid it is a pipe dream.
P.S. I should have said it would raise marginal rates 12.4%. Given how little money is being raised with the 3.8% Medicare surtax, we can surmise how little raising the SS cap would raise. And ultimately, social security was supposed to be something people paid into and then got paid out according to their contributions. The way to fix SS is to stop the ridiculous amount of SSDI and SSI payouts.
I live next to an otherwise personable gentleman in his 50s who is somehow on SSDI. He lives with his mother in her 80s. His grandchildren somehow get SSDI or SSI in a “hereditary” fashion, because his daughter gets it too. Thus he sits around the house and doesn’t work except for odd jobs he can do for cash.
This is basically a way of life for many people. On Thursday my wife went with some other ladies from church to help sew some dresses for someone a friend of mine has been inviting to their church. This woman is also on SSDI/SSI and has a kid on it as well. Her mom takes care of the kid but collects the disability check plus all the other welfare benefits (Medicaid, SNAP, WIC and so on). She seemed perfectly capable of working.
It simply doesn’t work to pay people not to work.
I am well aware of those who abuse the system. The problem is not with the base social security program. The base old age pension system would be viable if you eliminated many of these supplemental programs that were “great society “ and failures. Snap and wic have nothing to do with social security. Medicaid is actually a state program. I would be in favor of eliminating SSDI and SSI. At least back in my day, alcoholism was the leading cause of disability. The street name for SSDI for children was “crazy money “ because the frequent diagnosis was psychiatric.
The old age pension is the basic part of social security that is seen as not viable. That program collects from working people to support those who are too old to work productive jobs.
If you eliminate the old age pensions, are you planning to bring back the county alms house, which is likely the alternative.