What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

dxmnkd316 said:
This is a stupid argument anyways. I want all sales taxes and fees abolished. I want everything to be paid for by income taxes alone. Sweet sweet progressive income taxes.
Click to expand...

And wealth taxes. To be collected by local LEO with battering rams, rich whites having appropriated every other part of black culture.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Kepler said:
And wealth taxes. To be collected by local LEO with battering rams, rich whites having appropriated every other part of black culture.
Click to expand...

I'm slowly coming around on the idea of a wealth tax. Slowly. I still don't like it, but I think there's some merit. I'm more in favor of a progressive death tax. Or just make inheritance ordinary income regardless of vehicle (trust, a check, property, etc.)

I think a death tax is both more effective and more palatable to the American public. It just has to be marketed right. Democrats need to make sure everyone knows it's a myth this kills small business and family farms. Something like 40 farms in the US were affected last year and among those farms, they only owed something like 8% of their value.

I think it's more effective because it is no longer useful or productive money to the person who owns it. I don't care if someone gets rich in his or her lifetime. I would like them to be able to choose what to do with it. However, once that money transfers from one person to another, it's taxed. Whether it's a gift or inheritance.

I'm still operating under the (likely) myth that the rich got to where they are because they used their resources to do something valuable to society. For the most part. Look at the top richest men and women (well, I suppose it's just men...): Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Zuck, Kochs, Larry Ellison, Page and Brin, Bloomberg, the three Waltons*, Ballmer, Adelson. Eleven of the 14 didn't inherit their wealth, they created it. The richest people in the US are the people who created their own wealth. Maybe we're just in a weird time, but you can look at the list. Only a few people on that list are heirs or heiresses. So I think that I like the idea of killing off the wealth of people who don't use it for the betterment of society. That's why I think the inheritance tax is better.

Edit: Link
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

dxmnkd316 said:
Companies like Xcel, 3M, Google, Apple, and dozens of others have already begun converting to renewables. I don't think shareholders are the issue. Keep in mind who the shareholders of large public companies are. This isn't like Herbalife or other small fries where people like Carl Icahn can come in and demand changes. Only institutions like Vanguard, State Street, Blackrock have the real power in voting. People like you, me, and Sic don't matter. There aren't many proposals recommended by Boards that are rejected by shareholders.

As I mentioned above, State Street has taken to voting against boards that are all male and will begin to expand this pressure in 2020. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...te-against-more-directors-at-male-only-boards

Diversity and a refocus on the environment are being driven by institutional shareholders for many companies. Some, like the Exxons and Chevrons of the world, still have those proposals rejected. Probably because these institutions know that if Exxon was forced to reveal the lies they've told and all that they know about climate change it would be the Big Tobacco lawsuits all over again. It would be a friggin massacre. Companies like Xcel and 3M have already pushed this forward and shareholders have approved.
Click to expand...

The only reason companies are able to do that is that they were able to sell that vision and plan to their shareholders. If a company has a majority shareholder who wants to do these things, that's great. But if that changes mid-stream to some other group of people, all bets are off. And that is a HUGE issue for US based companies and how shareholder laws are written. The institutions DO care, as they make money by making money for other people. So if share prices are not keeping up, then they will demand changes.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

alfablue said:
The only reason companies are able to do that is that they were able to sell that vision and plan to their shareholders. If a company has a majority shareholder who wants to do these things, that's great. But if that changes mid-stream to some other group of people, all bets are off. And that is a HUGE issue for US based companies and how shareholder laws are written. The institutions DO care, as they make money by making money for other people. So if share prices are not keeping up, then they will demand changes.
Click to expand...

Aren't financial institutions the majority shareholders for all these companies by now? I mean in the end it's the same 1200 rich a-ssholes, but I would think mixing in the particularized poison of the vampire squids means our entire economy is now run on a highly intellectualized version of pump and dump.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

SJHovey said:
Money spent on infrastructure is a great idea, but the gas tax is pretty regressive. $3/week for you may be nothing, but for others it is just one more burden. The increased transportation costs, as you noted, just get passed on to the consumer of things like food, and in effect become just another regressive sales tax on that good.

I get the idea of raising taxes on a product that you'd like people to stop using (tobacco, for instance). I personally think that is a possible solution for gun sales. But for many people there isn't a practical alternative, especially outside the metro area. They need to drive their cars, and they need to consume fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

If $3 a week is a burden you cant afford to own a car. Come on man...

I agree on guns though. But the Trumpers would go on a killing spree.
 
Last edited:
Handyman said:
Its "own" but yes that is exactly what I am thinking :D

Between this and his budget (which includes a gas tax raise) he has my allegiance for life! He gets it and the proof is how stupified the MNGOP is with everything he is doing. They arent just opposing it is causing them to go suicidal. :eek:

On the gas tax...I see lots of whining about it around here. $.20 a gallon is NOTHING. I have a 16 gallon tank so that is a ROBUST $3.20 per fill up. ON HOES!!!! I understand that will hurt transportation (I used to work in transportation) but I also know they arent going to pay that they will find a way to pass it off to someone else. Meanwhile that money can be put to good use making the state better. If an extra $3 a week is my burden to help improve the things around here that need fixing sign me the F up!
Click to expand...

Is walz trying to take away our hamberders? Or force us to eat hamberders? The recent messaging is so confusing
 
The Sicatoka said:
Life is someone trying to convince you of something. Always.
What cell phone you use? Which provider? How'd they convince you?

Everything in life is convincing people to see things your way, so you get your outcomes.
(Even Kep admits he con'd Dr. Mrs. into marrying him. :D )

Everything is a con. (Not all are malicious or malignant.)
Click to expand...

That's one of the saddest things I've ever read. I pity you, because that's truly a pathetic stance on life.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

The Sicatoka said:
Life is someone trying to convince you of something. Always.
What cell phone you use? Which provider? How'd they convince you?

Everything in life is convincing people to see things your way, so you get your outcomes.
(Even Kep admits he con'd Dr. Mrs. into marrying him. :D )

Everything is a con. (Not all are malicious or malignant.)
Click to expand...

That's not life, it's commerce. You're just saying all commerce is a con. Which... well, ya got me there.

But if you think all life is commerce, that's on you, friend, not life. Murray Rothbard waits for you with heated pool and bar. But me I'm not stopping there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Kepler said:
But if you think all life is commerce, that's on you, friend, not life.
Click to expand...

All life is barter and exchange.
Again I reference your (commerce based) relationship with Dr. Mrs.
You each choose to give your time to the other in exchange for ... < signal lost > ....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top