▲ 1049 ▼ Italy begins stripping lesbian mothers of their parental rights (www.lgbtqnation.com) submitted 3 years ago by sam_uk@lemmy.world [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.
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (8 children) Again this makes no sense permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (7 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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
[+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (7 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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
[+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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
[+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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
[+] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 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
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 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