1049
Italy begins stripping lesbian mothers of their parental rights (www.lgbtqnation.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [B] to c/worldnews@lemmy.world
260 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

One mom said she cried for 10 days after hearing she was being removed from her daughter's birth certificate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -10 points 3 years ago (13 children)

Raising taxes on the people that chronically find ways to never pay taxes

You said it yourself.

Not raising taxes on regular people

Regular people range in age, income, education, districts where they live, various kinds of health, ethnic background and so on. Dunno why I wrote that.

How do you determine "regular" in the law, in simple unambiguous words?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 3 years ago (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    Again this makes no sense

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 3 years ago (7 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    I am not leftist, and I know more about economics than you do, clearly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 3 years ago (5 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 3 years ago (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Since you don't know what a pigouvian tax is, it's a tax designed to disincentives certain behaviors. "Sin" taxes are pigouvian. They're designed to address externalities not borne by the initial transaction.

    I'm not surprised you have little understanding of terms, but perhaps instead of doing this limp-wristed slap fighting you could actually stay on topic and describe what the fuck you meant above.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    The point of a pigouvian tax is not to fund the government, but to shape behavior and address externalities. Revenue is not the intent.

    Again you're not saying anything meaningful or specific. You can just say "I was talking out of my ass and barely remember the conversation." It's fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent