Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Biden/Harris Potential Legislative/Policy Agenda Discussions


Recommended Posts

On 4/17/2021 at 8:35 PM, Burgold said:

I think Goskins is right. Most SUV's I've  been in still are only good for carrying five people unless you want to forgo luggage then you can stick two more in uncomfortably. Now, a 1970's station wagon could haul a ton of people and stuff, but today's SUV are monster-sized on the outside and have the passenger capacity of a Yugo inside.

 

On a serious note, one interesting side effect of COVID has been that I have been walking a lot more. Since I stopped going to gym I've been trying to hike at least 10k a day. That often means I put a backpack on my back and hoof it to the grocery store. Sure, it takes longer and I can't buy as much, but it's a twenty minute walk each way and has resulted in refilling the tank from once a week to once a month if that (of course, not going to the office helps, too.)

 

So, mindset is a big part of how we drive, what he drive, or what's possible. There are reasons people can't walk, but if we want to carpool more... it's not about the size of the car. You can fit two comfortably in any sized car and most cars handle four easily. It's about changing the way we want to do things. In some respects, it's the mask argument. People don't want to change their habits or give up their FREEDOM (although in this case unlike masks I will admit as someone who has carpooled you are surrendering some freedom)


I bought a new truck this time last year.  I still haven’t even hit 10k miles on it.  Crazy how much less going places and how much money we are putting in savings due to all this.

 

 

 

Edited by TheGreatBuzz
Triple post
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a measured implementation of alternate minimum corporate tax is more meaningful than raising the corporate tax rate, but let's not pretend 28% is going to cause massive corporate exodus or hardship.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I think a measured implementation of alternate minimum corporate tax is more meaningful than raising the corporate tax rate, but let's not pretend 28% is going to cause massive corporate exodus or hardship.


Yeah, for a while now, I've had a fantasy that what we need is a kind of corporate AMT. Or sometimes I think of it as a "too big to fail tax". 
 

I'm thinking pick a number. I'm thinking $1B, but it's a vague number. And any corporation that has more gross revenue than that, gets taxed (some small number. 2-3%?) of their gross revenue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be far more effective to slash loopholes in the tax code than to raise corporate tax rates. Be more like Germany, with an 18% rate, but a tax code that is 1/4th the size of ours. We need the corporate equivalent if the 86 tax reform act.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Larry said:


Yeah, for a while now, I've had a fantasy that what we need is a kind of corporate AMT. Or sometimes I think of it as a "too big to fail tax". 
 

I'm thinking pick a number. I'm thinking $1B, but it's a vague number. And any corporation that has more gross revenue than that, gets taxed (some small number. 2-3%?) of their gross revenue.

 

I think it makes sense to allow for very skeletal deductions such as wages, actually paid out expenses and perhaps a very limited list of capital investments.  But yeah, something along those lines (gotta have a good phase out and subsidiaries rule though.  Allowing Amazon #1 through #10 to skirt the tax makes no sense). 

 

I also want all corporations transacting business with a US individual or entity to be subject to the tax with credit given for taxes paid to other countries.  No more dodging taxes by parking profits in tax havens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine workers union endorses Biden energy policies in exchange for job training

 

The United Mine Workers of America leadership announced Monday they support President Joe Biden’s green energy policies in exchange for a robust transition strategy, a move the union hopes its membership will support as a way to transition toward new jobs.

 

Fearing further regulations from the Biden administration, the UMWA is pleading with Congress to invest in the industry by allocating funds to training and “good paying jobs” with benefits in renewable energy sectors for miners dislocated by the changes. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is joining the union for its announcement Monday morning.

 

“We’re trying to, first of all, insert ourselves to the extent that we can in this conversation because our people, a lot of coal miners in this country, their families have suffered already some traumatic losses,” UMWA President Cecil Roberts told NBC.

 

For many miners, it’s going to be a hard sell.

 

“It’s not fair to take somebody’s job away from them and push them into another career,” Ryan Cottrell, a miner and union member in Harrison County, West Virginia, said in a phone interview. “I love my job. I wouldn’t trade it for anything in this world. And I hope coal is continued to be mined for years after I’m gone.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

It would be far more effective to slash loopholes in the tax code than to raise corporate tax rates. Be more like Germany, with an 18% rate, but a tax code that is 1/4th the size of ours. We need the corporate equivalent if the 86 tax reform act.

 

This was the big republican lie right. They said they wanted to lower corporate tax rates but close the loopholes. Well they lowered rates and did almost nothing with the loop holes. 

 

If you jsut eliminated most of the loopholes that allow a company to have a 0% effective tax rate we would be fine. I have no problem with rates if that happened. You also need to eliminate the restrictions on pass through income for small businesses. That entire bill was to make the richest richer. 

Edited by goskins10
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The two most coddled industries in the tax code are real estate and fossil fuels, so no surprise Eric's orange dad never did a damn thing to close loopholes. Tax loopholes are the cash cow of lobbyists and congressmen.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry said:


NYC should be a state, too. 
 

So should Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Oklahoma City. 

I assume what you're saying is, '**** people in DC who want representation.'

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, visionary said:

I assume what you're saying is, '**** people in DC who want representation.'


I assume what you're saying is "I don't want to respond to what you said, so I'll 'assume' something that even I know isn't true". 
 

My post does not contain the word "representation". And does not address it in any way. Which is why you had to "assume" that it did. 

Edited by Larry
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it’s time for a new category of state. City-states. There are several cities including DC that have enough population to be states. 
 

Say City states get full representation in the House and get one Senate seat; since they are just city states. Will never happen but that would alter things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um. 
 

someone tried to use population to argue against it by saying they wouldn’t qualify, based on population, to be a district. 
 

so they looked into it and found plenty of districts, and two entire states, with a smaller population. 
 

it’s not an argument that population size alone should dictate independent representation.... and that we should turn cities into states....

 

why does this need to be explained 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tshile said:

It’s not like it’s that hard to figure out what you were saying

 


I agree. 

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

Um. 
 

someone tried to use population to argue against it by saying they wouldn’t qualify, based on population, to be a district. 
 

so they looked into it and found plenty of districts, and two entire states, with a smaller population. 
 

it’s not an argument that population size alone should dictate independent representation.... and that we should turn cities into states....

 

why does this need to be explained 


Assume I missed that post. 
 

I was responding to a post, which I quoted. A post where the entire point was that DC's population entitled it to be its own state.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Larry said:


I agree. 


Assume I missed that post. 
 

I was responding to a post, which I quoted. A post where the entire point was that DC's population entitled it to be its own state.

 

 

But that was NEVER that point of that post. They were simply responding to a previous post suggesting that DC did not have enough population to be a state. That response was to someone saying it did not have enough population to be a state - which is a ridiculous argument. 

 

DC needs to either be a state or have states rights becasue the people living in the district are not properly represented in congress. Population is not a good argument either way. Now that can be handled in different ways. 

 

One way might be to let them have a vote for MDs Senators and then giving them the appropriate seats in congress. This is just one. 

 

But the idea of using population as an argument for or against is not a good argument. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry said:

Assume I missed that post. 
 

I was responding to a post, which I quoted. A post where the entire point was that DC's population entitled it to be its own state.


you mean the post that’s about an article with the headline:

 


and if you actually click on the article it opens up with:
Quote

Mace did not explain why she believed DC wouldn't "qualify" as a congressional district. A Mace spokesperson did not respond to CNN's requests for clarification. 

 


But some journalists, average Twitter users and two experts consulted by CNN surmised that Mace was suggesting DC's population is too small for it to qualify as a congressional district. So here is a look at the facts related to that argument.

 

 
🧐
Edited by tshile
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...