There are different kinds of weird, and not all of them play nice together.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
But there was no fraud Biden said so
Trump backer, 4 others charged with voter fraud in Wisconsin
A supporter of former President Donald Trump who said authorities should root out voter fraud is among five people charged with election fraud by a Republican district attorney who is running for Wisconsin attorney general.www.snopes.com
All that looking for voter fraud finally yields results after all this time, hoo ra! Checkmate, libtardigrades!
Everyone said we don't need to look into any possible fraud because it doesn't matter and not like it could change the result if it happened right?
Again how is in cancelling to point out it's a stupid ineffective move that ultimate won't help the crack pipes aren't needles where at least that has far more help and the exchanges are often at clinics that offer extra services etc at the time to try and help them. With Crack Pipes there's not really other services to deal with said addiction other than Rehab which lets be honest isn't for the kind of people whose lives are being ruined unless they're from a well off family.
How is that, exactly? Someone who earns a million a year will also pay less in most of the Republican US than they would in the UK.
"Qualifiers"!? We're literally discussing Republican policy as it compares to UK Tory policy. It's a pretty damn reasonable stipulation that you don't start irrelevantly talking about policy that is nothing to do with the Republicans.
Republicans "work to minimize the tax burden" for their wealthy constituents (or, perhaps more accurately, their donors and lobbyists). So the wealthiest get away with paying significantly less than they would in the UK, while the lowest earners pay more than they do in the UK. The tax burden isn't so much minimised as it is regressively rearranged. And simultaneously, they work to gut whatever welfare provisions or other safety nets stand in place for those poorest.
Oh, the rich people live in the urban centres. Their bank accounts or tax filings often don't. But then, both our countries shamelessly accommodate tax havens.
No, we really aren't. We were talking about US present conditions vs UK present conditions, now, you're trying to make it about UK present conditions vs Republican policy, at no point have you said anything about Tory policy. You brought taxes up as a way to contrast UK Conservatives and US Republicans, but you haven't said a word about what the Tories would actually do if there were no opposition.
The lowest earners pay zero, we've already established that. You continue to ignore the entire middle class. You continue to handwave away that VAT is a major source of tax revenue in the UK and is dramatically more regressive than either tax system.
Euhm didn't Texas go for a 6 weeks limit? Which is literally half the limit and such a short period many women may not even be aware they are pregnant yet?
And you know, in my humble opinion it's not just about a time limit. Heck unless you go for ultra tight limits like 6 weeks usually most women know they are pregnant and if they want to keep their child or not. While I wouldn't mind the limit increasing to 18 weeks anything above that seems rather useless (and I than start having ethical issues with how developed the phoetus is), what matters than is how accessible it is, are their hospitals where you can perform them nearby and for how much? And this is usually where European nations do quite well.
But you see, at least over here, while the current limits may seem strict, women do not need to fear every election cycle that some politicians will do everything they can to render abortion uselessly difficult while pretending it is still "possible". Which is exactly what happened in Texas.
Last edited:
What the fuck is your point? That these people shouldn't be charged because the massive widespread electoral fraud that trump and his idiot minions says happened, didn't, so the trump supporters who actually did commit voter fraud, didn't?
Like, you think this is some amazing 'checkmate liberals' moment? What the fuck?
Dude, that's SIlvanus' post that started this. The conversation has always been about the Republican platform. Not current policy across all of the US.
Literally the first post I wrote on this specifically talks about how Republican policy would be considered beyond the pail.
Firstly, the band that even has the option of paying zero in the US is significantly smaller than in the UK. Secondly, they pay zero if they accept a standard deduction that has a whole bunch of fucking strings attached.
I'm ignoring the middle class because overtaxing the working class/ poor and drastically undertaxing the upper class is far more indicative of a specifically regressive system, rather than just a hightax system.
And I'm setting aside VAT (which, let's be clear, is indeed regressive and shit) because its impact is much harder to quantify, and it hardly makes up for the up-to-9-or-10 percentage point effective difference in income tax for somewhere like Texas. As soon as you've recognised the enormous gulf serving the very highest earners in the most populous Republican state, then we can talk about damn VAT. Because honestly, you've handwaved a hell of a lot more: you've handwaved seven entire States operating with barebones Federal taxes, where the uber-rich pay bugger all, by talking about one city.
To be fair to tstorm, current Republicans don't really have any real platform/policy beyond a combination of opposing literally anything Democrats say/do and the "You made this? I made this." meme for the few things that pass despite their obstruction. Claiming credit for Democratic policies that work is entirely within the MO. See https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hou...ts-infrastructure-law-voted/story?id=81233929 as one recent and high profile example.
That law is weird, and was essentially designed to be struck down by the courts. It's like a test run on a round-about way of enforcing law, and if it wasn't controversial, they'd never really get the test.
That's not the post that started the discussing of specifically taxes, this is:
The conversation has not yet specifically addressed Tory policies (in part, admittedly, because I haven't had time to spend a few hours digging into it). Like, yes, Republicans in the UK would try and lower the taxes, I won't dispute that. That is different from Tories in what way?
I mentioned that city as the absolute max in a post that explicitly says some places have no income tax. And again, since you seem to have forgotten, 45-37 is 8. Not 20, not up-to-9-or-10, but 8.
The list of things you choose to ignore is anything that hurts your argument. I mentioned that not every state has income tax before you did, I mentioned that there is a gap between the personal allowance and the standard deduction before you did, I've acknowledged that parts that don't necessarily swing my way, which is admittedly because I'm arguing there's not a huge difference between the countries where you're arguing that there is, but don't project your behavior onto me.
It's different in that current policy nationwide is already Tory policy. They control all tax rates, and they've been in power for 10 years. They've lowered taxes on the highest earners, as expected... but never to the egregious degrees of most Republican administrations.
"Up to 9 or 10 percentage points" is literally the effective tax rate difference for someone on 500k in the UK and (for example) Texas.
8 is the difference between highest bands. Not effective tax.
Hah!! You mentioned them in passing, and then refused to change the overall argument, even though they represent major gaping flaws in it. Even though those factors alone make it indisputably true that in most Republican areas, the wealthiest pay less, and the poorest pay more, than in all UK areas.
It's not owning your mistake if you mention it in passing, and then wholly ignore its impact to continue to argue a line that is made untenable by those same factors you paid lipservice to.
Another Michael Flynn Relative Sues CNN Claiming 'Where We Go One, We Go All' Video Wasn't About QAnon
Piling onto lawsuits filed by Michael Flynn’s brother and sister, the ex-Donald Trump national security advisor's sister-in-law sued CNN for $100 million — claiming that the network falsely described her as a QAnon adherent.
Pro tip: that phrase is only ever about qanon. Knicked from a trailer scene (cut from the final film, lol) in an old obscure Jeff Bridges film 'White Squall' no-one else cares for, remembers or likes, it had no usage or fans until modern conspiracy worms got involved. The hilarious catch in their defense is; it's only qanon believers who think the phrase actually was on any JFK sailboat at all.
Oh and that exact pledge was literally an instruction given by a "Q drop" for their followers to carry out. So there's also that.
Last edited:
Surprisingly, this is not true.
In fact, people in the USA pay less tax than they do in the UK across the board (on average), irrespective of income quintile. The USA's tax burden is quite progressive, and more so than the UK (there is virtually no tax progressivity in the UK, except for the very poorest).
However, it's more complex than that, because the UK has a significantly more generous welfare system.
You know, for once I will concede. In a thread full of ridiculous lies, you are actually semi-correct.
However, it also serves as an excellent example of why this whole argument about laws is meaningless and doesn't matter.
DC, for example, has no fixed term limits on abortion.
DC also has the highest illegal abortion rate in the country.
DC has one planned parenthood clinic for the entire district.
What the actual fuck.
Let's be real, the ability to hypothetically get an elective third trimester abortion still means you have to find a clinic willing to do it. If there are no clinics willing to do it, that's not a right you have. If you can't afford to pay a clinic to do it and there is no funding available, that's not a right you have.
I've been through the process of getting an abortion in the UK with my friends, it is easy, quick, non-intrusive and non-judgemental. You don't even need to make an appointment, just go to a walk in sexual health clinic and they'll refer you. You won't have to deal with pro-lifers harassing you outside the clinic because that doesn't happen in the UK.
Abortion isn't just legal in the UK, it's actually accessible. Unlike much of the US.
As outlined above, the "standard deduction" in the US is significantly less generous than the personal allowance we have here. A much larger chunk of the poorest's earnings are untaxed here, and if they even want that deduction in the US at all they have to sign up for a host of strings and drawbacks.
Now the US's tax burden as a whole is less than the UK's, because they have such threadbare welfare systems, and no healthcare system to pay for. But the savings are disproportionately passed to the higher earners.
Sort of. How many of those places are run by Democrats? We were talking about how Republican policy compares to UK policy.
Last edited:
Why are you picking that one arbitrary point? Stop doing that! Or perhaps just let me try. Oh, hey look, a full time worker making minimum wage in the UK pays a higher effective tax rate than they would making the same amount in the US. Look, I picked one arbitrary number that made your argument look wrong and ignored everything else. Am I winning now?
They do not represent a major gaping flaw in my argument, because I am not arguing that US policy is vastly preferable to UK policy. I'm arguing that they are comparable taken as a whole, that for every time the US is further right or more conservative than other places there is also going to be an opposite case where the US is further left or less conservative. A single example does not blow a whole in that argument.
And the UK has none, I think?
For goodness sake, its just an illustrative number for the uber-wealthy. Someone on 600k would also pay more in the UK than Texas.
But one thing that specific illustrative number does show: the effective difference can be as high as 9 or 10 pp. Because it is at that scale. Which was the point in my using it here, because you moaned when I said 9-or-10 rather than 8, so it's appropriate to use an example in which 9-or-10 is precisely right.
As for minimum wage... you've glossed over the fact that the UK minimum wage itself is higher than a huge amount of the US. And in the US, to get that deduction, they have to cut themselves out of a host of other deductibles. Who is actually worse off? And where is the minimum wage worst in the US? ...Ah yes, Republican states.
Specifically on this point of contention-- that Republicans have a more regressive tax approach than the UK-- those issues alone indicate that the wealthiest pay less and the poorest pay more. Which is indeed a gaping flaw in your position on that particular point of contention.
Gonna have to stop you trying to shift it back to generic "US policy", by the way, as we already established that I was talking about Republican policy from the very beginning.