Sam BOT@lemmy.worldB to worldnews@lemmy.world · 1 year agoItaly begins stripping lesbian mothers of their parental rightswww.lgbtqnation.comexternal-linkmessage-square261fedilinkarrow-up11.07Karrow-down128file-textcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected]
arrow-up11.05Karrow-down1external-linkItaly begins stripping lesbian mothers of their parental rightswww.lgbtqnation.comSam BOT@lemmy.worldB to worldnews@lemmy.world · 1 year agomessage-square261fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected]
One mom said she cried for 10 days after hearing she was being removed from her daughter’s birth certificate.
minus-squareSCB@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up9·1 year agoI believe taxes for the top 3 (if not 4) quintiles in the US should be higher. So yeah, regular people don’t pay enough in taxes
minus-squarevacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down6·1 year agoOK. I’m in general against raising taxes, but if yes, then top 4, because market incentives (share of the tax income) work on governments too.
minus-squareSCB@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 year agoThat doesn’t really make any sense as a response. My concern with the second quintile is damaging social mobility, which is key to a growing economy
minus-squarevacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down7·1 year ago That doesn’t really make any sense as a response. For you, but I explained why. The same reason as why something controlled by people from the upper quintiles may become “too big to fail”. The more you are taxing people, the more you want their income not to tank. I think this is obvious.
minus-squareSCB@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 year agoI am not leftist, and I know more about economics than you do, clearly.
minus-squareSCB@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-21 year agoI didn’t say I didn’t understand you. I said what you said doesn’t make sense. It’s a nonsensical argument. Pigouvian, taxes for example, do not depend on you having any income whatsoever. Moreover the idea that “too big to fail” has anything to do with taxation is beyond absurd. If you want to be taken seriously, know what you’re talking about, and speak with specificity. I am a proud neoliberal, and focused on evidenced-based policy, not a leftist.
I believe taxes for the top 3 (if not 4) quintiles in the US should be higher.
So yeah, regular people don’t pay enough in taxes
OK. I’m in general against raising taxes, but if yes, then top 4, because market incentives (share of the tax income) work on governments too.
That doesn’t really make any sense as a response. My concern with the second quintile is damaging social mobility, which is key to a growing economy
For you, but I explained why. The same reason as why something controlled by people from the upper quintiles may become “too big to fail”.
The more you are taxing people, the more you want their income not to tank. I think this is obvious.
Again this makes no sense
Removed by mod
I am not leftist, and I know more about economics than you do, clearly.
Removed by mod
I didn’t say I didn’t understand you. I said what you said doesn’t make sense. It’s a nonsensical argument.
Pigouvian, taxes for example, do not depend on you having any income whatsoever.
Moreover the idea that “too big to fail” has anything to do with taxation is beyond absurd.
If you want to be taken seriously, know what you’re talking about, and speak with specificity.
I am a proud neoliberal, and focused on evidenced-based policy, not a leftist.