Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 369: Non-Fungible Tokenism

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1375448566865485833?s=21

This idea sucks

This idea sucks. Mayor Pete has let me down. Here I was thinking he was nice.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1375448566865485833?s=21

This idea sucks

Christ, is he trying to make it easy for Republicans?

Thanks Pete

---

Poor people are already the ones that have to drive longer for their jobs! Wtf?

Isn't gas/fuel tax, which we already have, already effectively that? If anything, tying it directly to the mile would lessen economic incentive for fuel-efficiency or electric cars or whatnot since you'd be cutting into an advantage they have.

---

The Republican messaging about Biden being senile and incompetent is so confusing to me. Why would you set up your opponent with such a low bar to clear, and one that they will obviously clear? Now any time Biden gives a speech or passes a bill, it will be positioned as a huge accomplishment.

They tried this during the campaign, and it failed then too, so I'm not sure why they are going down this road again, unless the commentators pushing this narrative honestly believe it.

---

With Trump as the head of the party I honestly think it was a mixture of projection and feeding into his wannabe strongman bit ("Only I can fix it"; all enemies must be simultanerously weak and pathetic [the senility stuff] and yet some grave threat [attack and dethrone god, puppet of the left, radical dem, etc])

...And now that the GOP base has gotten a taste of the real fascist/authoritarian rhetoric they don't want to go back to the dogwhistles of the past. And the politicians from that era want to keep drawing from that well until they can secure their power by suppressing the vote across enough of the nation.

---

xp1337 posted...

Isn't gas/fuel tax, which we already have, already effectively that? If anything, tying it directly to the mile would lessen economic incentive for fuel-efficiency or electric cars or whatnot since you'd be cutting into an advantage they have.

Sort of, but increased fuel efficiency and usage of electric cars means that gas taxes aren't raising as much money these days. We could just raise gas taxes to make up the difference, but that would disproportionately impact the poor (who tend to own older, less fuel-efficient cars and are unlikely to own electric cars).
---

Biden is definitely sundowning, I dont think anyone can disagree with that, but its not like Trump was the epitome of clarity and actually having a good brain, so from Republicans its a hollow attack.

---

https://twitter.com/betoorourke/status/1375475015311843331?s=21

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1375448566865485833?s=21

This idea sucks

Welp, there went his chance at being president.

---

Also Biden appears to be sundowning right into being more progressive than he has ever been so I am here for it.

---

Taxing by the mile makes so much more sense than fuel tax

---

masterplum posted...

Taxing by the mile makes so much more sense than fuel tax

how

---

I can only assume people in favor of taxing by mileage already let their insurance company monitor their mileage and speed for a minor rate discount. Because those programs are already in place and are massively opted out of.
---

Honestly, it makes sense to me. We want to encourage green energy and environmental conservative, so a mileage tax encourages less driving, more public transportation, and more electric cars so you're not hit as hard by a double dip of gasoline and the mileage tax. The only real problem is, as stated, it's extremely difficult for someone lower class, who has to rely on a non-electric car, to make up for this. But since it's accounted for after the fact (I'm assuming), perhaps there's a way to set an income threshhold so low-income workers won't be impacted by the mileage tax.

---

Its a regressive tax in everything but definition. The rich dont drive for a living, the middle and lower class do.

---

There's also the huge problem of "Dems want to tax you for driving"

Even if it made sense from a funding standpoint, it will be easily weaponized. I won't be surprised if we see that Pete soundbite repeated ad nauseum.

---

The easiest way to mitigate the tax increase would be to just refund some amount of the tax to everyone who pays it. If only people who drive more than average lose money and everyone else gets a refund check, I think the backlash might not be that bad. (Not saying it would necessarily be fair to the poor, though.)

That said, the real problem would be finding a good way to track mileage that people would accept. My state recently raised registration fees to make up for lower gas tax revenue and tried to add a mileage-based option, but they couldn't figure out a way to track mileage despite already having mandatory annual car inspections. If the federal government tried to get involved in (usually state-level) car stuff, people would hate them for it.
---

Lmao Max Collins from Eve 6 is so awesome

https://twitter.com/eve6/status/1375529032599568384?s=21

---

Regressive taxes like that aren't going to at all address climate change. I could understand wanting to tax our driving by mileage within urban centers if we all had cities with great public transportation but our cities are are built to be commuter towns and almost nothing outside of the biggest cities has halfway decent public transportation. A tax isn't going to make you want to drive less - the fact that you can only get to your job by driving is why you want to drive. We need to invest in public transportation and the infrastructure to increase access to it, but also, we need to heavily tax the wealthiest individuals who create by far the most carbon, and reduce spending on the US military, who is I believe the biggest offender. A tax by mileage on private planes would be millions of times more efficient than a tax by mile of driving.

fuming posted...

Regressive taxes like that aren't going to at all address climate change. I could understand wanting to tax our driving by mileage within urban centers if we all had cities with great public transportation but our cities are are built to be commuter towns and almost nothing outside of the biggest cities has halfway decent public transportation. A tax isn't going to make you want to drive less - the fact that you can only get to your job by driving is why you want to drive. We need to invest in public transportation and the infrastructure to increase access to it, but also, we need to heavily tax the wealthiest individuals who create by far the most carbon, and reduce spending on the US military, who is I believe the biggest offender. A tax by mileage on private planes would be millions of times more efficient than a tax by mile of driving.

A tax on air travel would be another good idea that would be more targeted at wealthier individuals.

---

Tax mileage on the top income bracket.
Inviso posted...

A tax on air travel would be another good idea that would be more targeted at wealthier individuals.

No, this also fucks poor people. Further tax charter flights and tickets over $1200 or whatever.

Or, and this is just me spitballing here, we can tax all income above $1 million per year at 75%.

---

Inviso posted...

Honestly, it makes sense to me. We want to encourage green energy and environmental conservative, so a mileage tax encourages less driving, more public transportation, and more electric cars so you're not hit as hard by a double dip of gasoline and the mileage tax. The only real problem is, as stated, it's extremely difficult for someone lower class, who has to rely on a non-electric car, to make up for this. But since it's accounted for after the fact (I'm assuming), perhaps there's a way to set an income threshhold so low-income workers won't be impacted by the mileage tax.

We literally dont have ****ing public transportation here.

If you make a regressive tax and then set an income threshold where it doesnt apply, youee basically targeting the middle class for minimum benefit and maximum negative PR.

Just fucking tax the wealthy lmao.

If the goal isnt to raise money but reducing emissions or reducing cars on the road, incentivize other things and build public transport.

---

Tax the wealthy and use the money for public transport imo.

there are many other things money gained from taxing the wealthy should also be used on but public transport is an excellent starting point

---

Here's an idea:

Let's remove tax exemptions for churches. Kenneth Copeland owns a 6 million dollar home that he pays no taxes on because it's church property. That should make anyone who pays taxes on their home extremely angry.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Let's remove tax exemptions for churches.

Wouldn't churches still be tax-exempt without the special religion rule due to being nonprofit organizations?
---

simply stop allowing churches to be nonprofit organizations!

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Just fucking tax the wealthy lmao.

If any politician wanted to actually tax the wealthy, they would make an earnest attempt to.

They have no interest in that and would rather come up with absurdist ideas like mileage tax to avoid doing the most reasonable thing for people.

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

simply stop allowing churches to be nonprofit organizations!

But most churches are non-profits.

It's mostly mega churches that are the problem.

---

https://twitter.com/aj_buu/status/1375300353378291712?s=21
---

https://twitter.com/islamphobiacow/status/1375876897331118083?s=21

lol

---

I mean he is putting ethnic minorities in concentration camps
---

So I see some Boycott Coca Cola and Boycott Delta trending in Twitter because...their HQ are in Georgia so that automatically means they must condemn the new voting restrictions laws? wtf? Why? They have nothing to do with them

---

Nanis23 posted...

So I see some Boycott Coca Cola and Boycott Delta trending in Twitter because...their HQ are in Georgia so that automatically means they must condemn the new voting restrictions laws? wtf? Why? They have nothing to do with them

Denying the state money makes the state behave

---

https://twitter.com/starsandstripes/status/1376141267172618249?s=21


---

Thanks Biden

---

https://twitter.com/SecBlinken/status/1375831718633029633
Blinken trying really hard to be even shittier than Pompeo was

---

I feel like this topic has been slow as hell lately.

Anyway, on the topic of defund the police, lol

https://twitter.com/hehewaitwhut/status/1376222440993398785?s=21

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I feel like this topic has been slow as hell lately.

Wow, it's almost like having reasonable adults in charge of government makes things boring!

(while you and I may not be happy with everything the Biden administration has done I think we can at least agree they are considerably more competent at running an effective government than the toadies Trump put in charge)

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Wow, it's almost like having reasonable adults in charge of government makes things boring!

Big now we can brunch and not care about politics because they dont actually affect me energy.

The Biden administration is more competent in the sense that theyre not actively trying to crash the system around us, but theres still plenty to pay attention to!

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The Biden administration is more competent in the sense that theyre not actively trying to crash the system around us, but theres still plenty to pay attention to!

Sure, but it's a lot harder for people to keep up the same intensity when the current problems are so much harder to fix. It's easier for people to focus on simple messages, which is why Trump hatred was so much more effective than the usual Democratic ideas (or progressive ideas, if you want to argue people hate the Dems' ideas because the ideas themselves are dumb).
---

Sounds like the George Floyd trial started today. My opinion on this is as it was before.

If this ends in another not guilty verdict (which it probably will), there will be rioting to the level that people will die. It's only a matter of how many.

We are dangerously close to a new breaking point already. A failure of justice this grievous would hit it.

I wish I had any faith at all that they'd get this one right. If this isn't murder, just declare the police completely immune to the law, officially make us a police state, and be done with it.

---

You admit it will probably be not guilty then justify people dying in riots after as the not guilty being the injustice and not the rioting causing deaths.

Backwards logic.

---

A riot is the language of the unheard.

The social contract is broken. They have every right to riot and that may make you uncomfortable but justice must go both ways and it does not in this country.

---

Crescent-Moon posted...

If this ends in another not guilty verdict (which it probably will), there will be rioting to the level that people will die. It's only a matter of how many.

Question: Who would be doing the killing in these riots? Are you saying protestors are going to start kill people, or are you saying the police are going to escalate their response to protests even further by just killing them? There's a pretty big difference in what those mean.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

A riot is the language of the unheard.

The social contract is broken. They have every right to riot and that may make you uncomfortable but justice must go both ways and it does not in this country.

Breaking the law is okay because I made up excuses for it being okay! All this means, bud.

---

Yes, I agree that sucks. So when police officers kill unarmed black people it sucks. Glad we agree that justice has to be served.

---

Xeybozn posted...

Question: Who would be doing the killing in these riots? Are you saying protestors are going to start kill people, or are you saying the police are going to escalate their response to protests even further by just killing them? There's a pretty big difference in what those mean.

I wouldn't be surprised by either. If Derek Chauvin is acquitted, that is essentially a message to the police that there is literally no instance in which they will ever be held accountable for taking the life of another human being. Most other instances, it's a shooting and happens so fast that they can get away with bullshit excuses like "I thought I saw a gun" or "I feared for my life". But if a cop gets away with kneeling on a prone man's neck for nine minutes, then that tells the police that they're allowed to murder anyone for any reason. There's no reason to hold back against protestors at that point. And on the protestors' side of things, they have all the reason in the world to fear for THEIR lives against an unaccountable murder gang, so they could easily start killing as well.

---