Mass shooting in Main

[Phoenixmgs]

"This stuff", i.e. income tax, in Washington hasn't been up for a public referendum because it needs the supermajority votes first. Don't deflect back to California because you made a hilariously bad argument on every level about taxes in Washington

Both the those things I mentioned are perfectly equal, it's both on the voters in each state. The Washington supermajority tax thing has been up to vote (to keep or get rid of it) by the citizens and the citizens keep voting to keep it in place (even democratic voters are overall for keeping that tax supermajority law in place). Same thing with California, the citizens keep voting to stop anything but single family housing in their neighborhoods.

So you prefer policy that's functionally worse (as Republican tax policy is outside of a single state) just so long as the legislators are honest?

Dunno man, I'd just prefer policy that's less awful.

When you add up all the policies. red states aren't post-apocalyptic barren wasteland that you all make them out to be. Usually the policies there actually help minorities more than blue states because cost of living is simply cheaper and it's easier for people to buy houses and such.

 

[Silvanus]

When you add up all the policies. red states aren't post-apocalyptic barren wasteland that you all make them out to be. Usually the policies there actually help minorities more than blue states because cost of living is simply cheaper and it's easier for people to buy houses and such.

Man, you really want to shift off tax and onto house prices, don't you? Is that because the tax angle was such a bust?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Both the those things I mentioned are perfectly equal, it's both on the voters in each state. The Washington supermajority tax thing has been up to vote (to keep or get rid of it) by the citizens and the citizens keep voting to keep it in place (even democratic voters are overall for keeping that tax supermajority law in place).

It's a constitutional amendment, what are you on about? Name one actual time it's been up for a vote. Or are you just assuming it has?

 

[Ag3ma]

The Washington supermajority tax thing has been up to vote (to keep or get rid of it) by the citizens and the citizens keep voting to keep it in place (even democratic voters are overall for keeping that tax supermajority law in place).

But this isn't remotely the same thing.

A supermajority vote may prevent a law being passed that the people want. But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll scrap the supermajority vote, because they have to weigh that decision against the possibility of all sorts of other laws being more easily passed that they don't want.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

But this isn't remotely the same thing.

A supermajority vote may prevent a law being passed that the people want. But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll scrap the supermajority vote, because they have to weigh that decision against the possibility of all sorts of other laws being more easily passed that they don't want.

I think he's conflating the rules for changing a constitutional amendment (which is preventing the implementation of an income tax) with a law that Washington conservatives passed that made *any* attempt to raise taxes require a supermajority vote...which was blocked by the Washington Supreme Court for being unconstitutional

Washington Supreme Court Tosses Out Supermajority Tax Vote Requirement

OLYMPIA, Wash. - Washington Democrats say it’s a victory for democracy. Republicans call it a defeat for taxpayers. In a major decision Thursday, the…

www.nwnewsnetwork.org

In fairness, if you aren't a close reader, that *is* moderately confusing, especially consider that Washington Republicans then passed a similar law that requires a supermajority vote for certain new taxes in the lower house only, violating the spirit but not the raw language of the Washington constitution

Washington Senate imposes two-thirds approval rule for tax increases - TVW

The 2015 Washington State Legislature kicked off Monday with a new rule in the Senate that would make it harder for the Legislature to pass tax increases -- a new requirement for a two-thirds majority approval to pass tax increases in the Senate.

tvw.org

 

[BrawlMan]

Once again putting this thread back on top. Can you please stop arguing about things that have nothing to do with this? Phoenix doesn't give a damn and we all know this.

Here's some new info:

Maine commission investigating mass shootings wants to subpoena killer's military records

The panel is expected to investigate potential missed opportunities to prevent the shootings.

www.google.com

Maine health care providers rally in Lewiston to demand gun safety reform

Medical providers from across the state gathered Sunday afternoon with Maine Providers for Gun Safety in response to the Oct. 25 mass shooting and other gun violence in Maine and across the nation.

www.centralmaine.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Man, you really want to shift off tax and onto house prices, don't you? Is that because the tax angle was such a bust?

Housing prices were in the video... Ir's a more important issue than taxes, it's just that taxes were earlier in the video. Democrats are supposed to be for helping the disadvantaged correct? Then why are they so bad at it and red states don't even try and do better?

It's a constitutional amendment, what are you on about? Name one actual time it's been up for a vote. Or are you just assuming it has?

Voters have enacted or reaffirmed the two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases four times: 1993, 1998, 2007, and again in 2010.

Probably again since as the source was from 2011.

But this isn't remotely the same thing.

A supermajority vote may prevent a law being passed that the people want. But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll scrap the supermajority vote, because they have to weigh that decision against the possibility of all sorts of other laws being more easily passed that they don't want.

Initiative 1053, for example, was just for supermajority for tax changes and nothing else.

 

[Silvanus]

Housing prices were in the video... Ir's a more important issue than taxes, it's just that taxes were earlier in the video. Democrats are supposed to be for helping the disadvantaged correct? Then why are they so bad at it and red states don't even try and do better?

OK, but you originally made a series of claims about tax. As soon as you acknowledge that (as your own source says) Republican states are more regressive, and the states that tax the rich least are Republican, then I'll be happy to move onto Housing prices.

But if you refuse to acknowledge that, then there's not much point, is there? You'd just refuse to acknowledge any point anyone made on housing, too.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Voters have enacted or reaffirmed the two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases four times: 1993, 1998, 2007, and again in 2010.

Probably again since as the source was from 2011.

Neat. And what was the source?

And cut it out with the fucking "probably"s

 

[Phoenixmgs]

OK, but you originally made a series of claims about tax. As soon as you acknowledge that (as your own source says) Republican states are more regressive, and the states that tax the rich least are Republican, then I'll be happy to move onto Housing prices.

But if you refuse to acknowledge that, then there's not much point, is there? You'd just refuse to acknowledge any point anyone made on housing, too.

I nor the video ever made that claim, you make arguments that nobody ever made (aka strawman). How are blue states in the top 10 in such metrics if they are so against those very things? That was the argument, don't change arguments.

Neat. And what was the source?

And cut it out with the fucking "probably"s

Initiative 1185: To Affirm the Two-thirds Vote Requirement for Tax Increases » Publications » Washington Policy Center

 

[Silvanus]

I nor the video ever made that claim, you make arguments that nobody ever made (aka strawman).

You literally claimed that Democratic policies made things worse; that they were more regressive; and that the state that taxes the rich the least is Democratic. Those were your claims.

Stop trying to weasel out of them now they've been shown to be bunk.

How are blue states in the top 10 in such metrics if they are so against those very things? That was the argument, don't change arguments.

They're not "so against those very things"-- the Democrats suck. Its just that the Republicans are worse, hence why far more of the worst 10 are Republican, and far more of the best 10 are Democrat, according to your own source.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You literally claimed that Democratic policies made things worse; that they were more regressive; and that the state that taxes the rich the least is Democratic. Those were your claims.

Stop trying to weasel out of them now they've been shown to be bunk.



They're not "so against those very things"-- the Democrats suck. Its just that the Republicans are worse, hence why far more of the worst 10 are Republican, and far more of the best 10 are Democrat, according to your own source.

Yes, policies (plural, and as a whole) make things worse, not singularly the tax policy. Yes, the state (singular) that taxes the rich the least is democratic, not that democratic states overall are usually worse in that metric. That is literally what I (and the video) said, what am I weaseling out of?

Nobody said that overall red states have more equal tax policy. Nor is tax policy the end-all-be-all that makes states a better place to live either.

Here's just another mini example of Baltimore wasting tax dollars on the thing people need the least... bike lanes. Changing a 4-lane road to a 2-lane road is only making things worse, not better. The guy at the end literally says they go far for everything they don't need instead of the things we do need. Could've used that money for more cops becasue crime is a major issue but nope, let's put in bike lanes when nobody rides bikes.
Baltimore residents protest as city shrinks car lanes for bike lanes - link in bio - YouTube

 

[BrawlMan]

Maine authors rally to support Lewiston shooting victims through book sales and signings

Mainers across the state are continuing to rally in support of the families of those we lost in last month's mass shootings in Lewiston.

wgme.com

Community creates holiday shrine for Lewiston shooting victims

Embracing tightly and fingers intertwined, Annabelle Woodman and Maria Wilson stood outside Schemengees Bar and Grille Sunday afternoon.

katu.com

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, policies (plural, and as a whole) make things worse, not singularly the tax policy. Yes, the state (singular) that taxes the rich the least is democratic, not that democratic states overall are usually worse in that metric. That is literally what I (and the video) said, what am I weaseling out of?

Well for starters, you originally had a range of claims that were specifically about progressive/regressive tax, then you retreated into more vague guff about housing and other areas of policy when the tax claim fell apart.

And your own source shows the state that taxes the rich the least is Republican. You have to get to the sixth to get a Dem (Washington).

Nobody said that overall red states have more equal tax policy.

You linked more regressive tax policies with Democrat states specifically.

 

[Ag3ma]

Yes, policies (plural, and as a whole) make things worse, not singularly the tax policy. Yes, the state (singular) that taxes the rich the least is democratic, not that democratic states overall are usually worse in that metric. That is literally what I (and the video) said, what am I weaseling out of?

One might suggest the problem is that it is unrepresentative. For instance, let's say you grabbed an American man who spoke Spanish as his first language, and argued therefore Spanish is the main language of the USA. Sure, you have evidence. But that evidence is not representative. You might reasonably be accused of being misleading or dishonest.

Thus making a massive song and dance about a Democratic state taxing the rich the least when overall Republican states tax their rich less likewise could be viewed as deceptive. Being technically correct in the process of tricking people into believing the wrong thing isn't much of a virtue.

 

[Silvanus]

Being technically correct in the process of tricking people into believing the wrong thing isn't much of a virtue.

((Though its also technically incorrect, as per his own source))

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Well for starters, you originally had a range of claims that were specifically about progressive/regressive tax, then you retreated into more vague guff about housing and other areas of policy when the tax claim fell apart.

And your own source shows the state that taxes the rich the least is Republican. You have to get to the sixth to get a Dem (Washington).



You linked more regressive tax policies with Democrat states specifically.

Where? I just said the state with the most unequal taxes was a blue state (because that was in the video). And housing was a also a big part of the video. I was talking about the stuff in the video so I obviously included the stuff in the video.

Literally a screenshot of my post with my source showing Washington as #1. Do you guys just get off on gaslighting?

One might suggest the problem is that it is unrepresentative. For instance, let's say you grabbed an American man who spoke Spanish as his first language, and argued therefore Spanish is the main language of the USA. Sure, you have evidence. But that evidence is not representative. You might reasonably be accused of being misleading or dishonest.

Thus making a massive song and dance about a Democratic state taxing the rich the least when overall Republican states tax their rich less likewise could be viewed as deceptive. Being technically correct in the process of tricking people into believing the wrong thing isn't much of a virtue.

Nope, the point was if taxing the rich is a democratic core value, how is a democratic state the worst in that regard? If affordable housing is so important to democrats, why is housing so expensive in their states and cities?

 

[Silvanus]

Where? I just said the state with the most unequal taxes was a blue state (because that was in the video). [...]

Literally a screenshot of my post with my source showing Washington as #1. Do you guys just get off on gaslighting?
View attachment 10203

No, you've subtly changed your argument. You originally said the state that taxes the rich the least is Democratic.

That's not the same thing as "most inequitable", which is what that table is ranking states by. How 'equitable' a state's tax code is depends on multiple interactive factors.

If we look at which states tax the rich the least, your own source lists the top 3 as Nevada, Florida and South Dakota, all Republican. Washington is ~6th.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No, you've subtly changed your argument. You originally said the state that taxes the rich the least is Democratic.

That's not the same thing as "most inequitable", which is what that table is ranking states by. How 'equitable' a state's tax code is depends on multiple interactive factors.

If we look at which states tax the rich the least, your own source lists the top 3 as Nevada, Florida and South Dakota, all Republican. Washington is ~6th.

No, I just worded it slightly wrong from the video. That's why I linked the video that you didn't watch because they video will be correct and what I remembered and/or summarized can end up being a bit wrong (basic Chinese telephone in essence). That's why I link stuff so that happens as little as possible.

 

[Silvanus]

No, I just worded it slightly wrong from the video.

I guess that's as close as I'll be getting to a concession.

I addressed the argument you made. You then fought and fought for umpteen posts. Now, finally, at least we're on the same page that the states taxing the rich the least are Republican. Just wish it hadn't taken so damn long.