What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

The Green New Deal

Cannavore

Well-known member
Veteran
i wonder if there were people in the 1960's who said, "hey we dont have the technology yet to really go to the moon, let's wait 40 years til the technology naturally evolves and develops up to the point that we need".
 

Cannavore

Well-known member
Veteran
Cool story... however you aren’t AOC. Quit being a sheep and research the numbers your self. Read about O’Malley’s millionaire tax as a starting point. As taxes go up, the money LEAVES.

but i thought this was a muh free market. if people leave someone will just take their muh place right?
 

Badfishy1

Active member
but i thought this was a muh free market. if people leave someone will just take their muh place right?

What the literal fuck are you talking about? No as money LEAVES due to high taxes, money doesn’t come back to replace it. Sorry kiddo you have no idea what you are talking about (proven in your last post). I’m sure due to your socialistic tendencies I owe you an answer, but you clearly aren’t educated enough to be at the adult table. Respond as you wish, but I’m done
 

Cannavore

Well-known member
Veteran
yikes
4qHzjB8.jpg



"But despite the preponderance of stories of wealthy residents fleeing Connecticut, the empirical evidence shows the rich tend to move less frequently than low- and middle-income residents. The need for employment is still one of the main reasons people move while home and business ownership — most common among high-income households — promote stability."


"When millionaires do move, they admittedly tend to favour lower-tax states over higher-tax ones – but only marginally so. Around 15% of interstate millionaire migrations bring a net tax advantage. The other 85% have no net tax impact for the movers.

Furthermore, almost all of the tax-migration moves are to just one low-tax state: Florida – where low-income taxes comingle with sun, sand and palm trees. Other low-tax states such as Texas, Tennessee and Nevada do not pick up any net tax-migration. So while some millionaires have moved to lower tax states over the years 1999-2011, the flows have been too small to change the geography of the economic elite in America."

"The Forbes list of the world’s billionaires offers an international look at elite migration, and takes us higher up the food chain to the greatest corners of wealth.

Analysis of this list shows most of the world’s billionaires – about 84% – still live in their country of birth. And among those who do live abroad, most moved to their current country of residence long before they became wealthy – either as children with their parents, or as students going abroad to study (and then staying)."

"Only about 5% of world billionaires moved abroad after they became successful. These individuals readily fit the stereotype of a “transnational capitalist class” – unplugged from their nation state, travelling the world for some combination of tax avoidance and cosmopolitan lifestyle."
 

St. Phatty

Active member
AOC could finance a study to help move along her new Deal

by taking off her clothes for Playboy.

They'd probably pay her $1 Million.

If she put most of that in a Green New Deal bank account, it would be in the black. For a few minutes.

That doesn't happen to many government programs.

Her GND stuff is so un-realistic, someone will make money twisting their tech skills to falsely prove that everything she's talking about is realistic.

She's not applying for a PhD at MIT or a degree in Economics at U of Chicago.

She's applying for the US presidency, maybe in the year 2032.

She doesn't have to make sense, any more than Trump does.


Is there a butterfly effect ?

If Trump started being nice to the Democrats, would AOC "move to the right" ? Actually, I don't think she would.

She connects with her base by talking about 70% tax rates, just like Trump connects with his base by talking about The Wall.

Wasn't that a Pink Floyd song ?
 

Badfishy1

Active member
Holy fuck the ignorance. AOC talks about FEDERAL income tax hikes and you post some shit about millionaires moving from state to state? How in the fuck does where a person live matter? The tax raise is FEDERAL. Moving money across state lines does NOTHING. The money goes OFFSHORE. As in leaves the fucking country to prevent FEDERAL taxes. Read up on the Panama papers kid. A+ and gold star for effort tho
 

Cannavore

Well-known member
Veteran
yes and that's why i want to force them to bring the money back into the country and tax the fuck out of them. they don't get to hold the rest of the country and world hostage just becuase they're greedy oligarch slimeballs. but i'm glad to see you agree that a small portion of the world's population owns all the wealth. the laws in the US are clearly written for the elites. if we tried to evade taxes because we thought they were "too high" we'd be thrown into prison already. enough with the two tier system this country has.

they do it because they are megalomaniacs and sociopaths who want to horde as much wealth as possible. not because they are taxed too much. that's just the excuse they use. the effective tax rate for fortune 500 companies before trump took office was something like 13%.... companies like Verizon haven't paid taxes in over a decade.
it's the same with why jobs get shipped overseas. it's not as much about taxes as it is about paying workers nothing, giving them no benefits, no child labor laws, ect.

70% tax on income over 10 million is just a start. and it's popular.
 

Badfishy1

Active member
yes and that's why i want to force them to bring the money back into the country and tax the fuck out of them. they don't get to hold the rest of the country and world hostage just becuase they're greedy oligarch slimeballs. but i'm glad to see you agree that a small portion of the world's population owns all the wealth. the laws in the US are clearly written for the elites. if we tried to evade taxes because we thought they were "too high" we'd be thrown into prison already. enough with the two tier system this country has.

they do it because they are megalomaniacs and sociopaths who want to horde as much wealth as possible. not because they are taxed too much. that's just the excuse they use. the effective tax rate for fortune 500 companies before trump took office was something like 13%.... companies like Verizon haven't paid taxes in over a decade.
it's the same with why jobs get shipped overseas. it's not as much about taxes as it is about paying workers nothing, giving them no benefits, no child labor laws, ect.

70% tax on income over 10 million is just a start. and it's popular.

70% or 100% of 0= 0
That’s the issue. Yes absolutely a small % own 99% no dispute there. If you think higher taxes is going to erase greed you are sadly mistaken. Look at the numbers during the 50’s and 60’s when taxes were higher. There was about 3% difference in the actual amount taken in. About 27% now and 30% then. Also, a very GENEROUS figure given by WSJ estimates about $200b more over 10 years. Yet the spending would be in the trillions. Listen man, yes 70% sounds very nice. Sure I want more for American CITIZENS. However, as you pointed out before, history will repeat itself. And raising taxes for the wealthy has ONLY hurt the economy
 

St. Phatty

Active member
As taxes go up, the money LEAVES.

Very true.

Demographics of California are changing. Lots of people taking their $$ and going places where it spends better.

Though it's not entirely because of taxes. It's partially because their California home makes them a millionaire and it is financially logical to cash out when they retire.


Plus there are hidden taxes. E.g. in most California urban areas, you need garage parking, or secure off-street parking.

Otherwise your car will end up like the truck full of sea-food that got lost outside one of the housing projects at Mission & 24th in SF in the early 90's.

Truck driver had his cargo stolen. Then he and his wife ended up in the ER, and dead.

I figure all the car break-ins is sort of like a tax.
 

vta

Active member
Veteran
So: what is the Federalist’s approach to the massive problems that we have re: decaying urban infrastructure; theft of public water supplies by Nestle and others; poisoning of the water table thru chemical leaks, illegal dumping, oil spills, fracking, etc; the lack of a secure and unified power grid, transportation; voter suppression; our senselessly fragmented and inequitable electoral “system”; toxic energy sources and production; police murders of citizens in the streets; prioritization of wealthy citizens above the rest of the population; the weaponization of press freedom, et cetera?

Good question...maybe write them a letter :dunno:
 

St. Phatty

Active member
WAAAAY too complicated.

The US needs to do one primary thing to fix itself - prosecute criminal behavior in the health destruction industry.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?archive-list=Market-Ticker&cat=Health+Reform

No new laws needed.

Denninger has quite a long list of code & law violations. A very good starting point for any state attorney general or their county equivalent.


The US also needs to reduce the # of laws.

They are selectively enforced, which makes for selective persecution.

FVCK THAT.


At least 1/2 of what the pseudo-dems seek in their "GND" would be accomplished by a simple thorough reform of the American health destruction industry.


So much of the destruction of the US comes from within.


e.g. the US military can destroy land & water with impunity -

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/07/us-military-fuel-tanks-threaten-aquifer-in-hawaii/

It also is beginning to come out that the recent Ventura fire started on the Santa Susana nuclear storage site, run by Boeing, in North Ventura. If you bone up on the history of the Santa Susana site, you would understand the wisdom of everyone downstream & down-wind, selling their property before fuller disclosures are made.
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
The US also needs to reduce the # of laws.
They are selectively enforced, which makes for selective persecution.

FVCK THAT.
So much of the destruction of the US comes from within.[/B]
e.g. the US military can destroy land & water with impunity -

a munitions plant miles upstream from here routinely exceeds the limits of toxins & cancer causing chemicals they allow to outflow into the Holston River here. pipes plant-wide have been in use since the late 40s, many of them. they are coated internally with these chemicals, but it would be cost-prohibitive for BAE (plant operator) to shut down & replace them all. every heavy rain is followed by their "water treatment" plant being overwhelmed. thousands of people downstream get their drinking water from the river & downstream lakes, as well as watering livestock, thus potentially contaminating our food supply. they have been THREATENED with fines, but i doubt any have been paid.:moon:
 

Gry

Well-known member
a munitions plant miles upstream from here routinely exceeds the limits of toxins & cancer causing chemicals they allow to outflow into the Holston River here. pipes plant-wide have been in use since the late 40s, many of them. they are coated internally with these chemicals, but it would be cost-prohibitive for BAE (plant operator) to shut down & replace them all. every heavy rain is followed by their "water treatment" plant being overwhelmed. thousands of people downstream get their drinking water from the river & downstream lakes, as well as watering livestock, thus potentially contaminating our food supply. they have been THREATENED with fines, but i doubt any have been paid.:moon:
This is exactly the sort of thing deep state and big corporate tag team us all on.
They don't even bother pretending they care about cleaning it up any more.
Have The Santa Susana Field Laboratory nearby sharing way more than I ever wished for
Even when the bastard's do get fined, they get to write it off on their damn taxes.
 

St. Phatty

Active member
This is why when people talk about Breast Cancer, or they have donations for Breast Cancer at the checkout, I say, "are you kidding or are you serious ?"

I think it's massively obvious why breast cancer rates in the US have gone up, compared to the 1950's.

https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/02/04/why-are-breast-cancer-rates-increasing/

Very simply, women live in a pea soup of mostly microscopic quanties of toxic chemicals. Parts per million, Parts per Billion.

That pea soup was virtually non-existent before the petro-chemical "design wave" that took over Western Universities in the 20th centuries.

Of course, that petro-chemical design wave was occurring at the same time that nuke storage facilities like Hanford & Santa Susana were destroying their local country-sides, instead of doing their job and safeguarding the nuke materials.

Or as they said in the movie The Graduate, "Plastics".
 

art.spliff

Active member
ICMag Donor
armedoldhippy Gry and St. Phatty you've summarized it well.

This is what I think about when I think of hell in a hand basket or draining a swamp. Why is an ammunition manufacturer (of all things no less) allowed to pollute and cause cancer? The root cause, we do not need bullets to be manufactured in the first place. US leads in domestic mass shootings. Bullets are used to kill as in war. Death on both sides measured and observed. What exactly is the reasoning behind this?

Who is benefiting from death on both ends of this production? It is so closely linked, for example let's examine ties between military forces and oil reserves and the oil business in Texas for example. So does the military benefit certain people financially? If so then what is the function of the military? A private military? How much different is this from mercenaries? What is the appropriate criminal charge or action for people benefiting financially from military action?

If a supposed peace keeping force is found out to be acting as a private or financially driven military, what is the consequence for its leaders and participants? If it is ruled that an action was wrong, does that necessitate war crime charges? Would the US ever charge its own leaders with war crimes? Does the US claim its military does or does not benefit private people financially from its actions? In other words does the US military claim to invade and capture resources for private interests or is the public message supposed to be something else?

If we (meaning people, collective us, not necessarily me intentionally) are polluting water and ground without restraint, then why in the world are breast cancer charities asking for money? Why don't we clean the lead out of the water before hiring a scientist doctor to try and find a cure for cancer in some petri dish? It looks like part of the same racket. In fact it is part of the same racket - let's give a little credit to those involved. If a place can set up a fundraiser or build an MRI or X-ray machine, you would think those same people might be smart enough to realize that cleaning the lead out of the water is a good idea. No amount of X-ray machines or petri dishes is going to remove lead from drinking water - in fact these items have placed lead into the drinking water causing illness.
 
Last edited:

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
Art, we are talking military explosives, not bullets. C-4 for the Marines, and another that they melt down into SHAPE charges, plus the explosive that they fill in around the plutonium core of nuclear weapons so it compresses the core from all directions upon detonation. hell, if it was Winchester making hunting ammunition we would not be discussing it. at least, I wouldn't be...:biggrin:
 

St. Phatty

Active member
Art, we are talking military explosives, not bullets. C-4 for the Marines, and another that they melt down into SHAPE charges, plus the explosive that they fill in around the plutonium core of nuclear weapons so it compresses the core from all directions upon detonation. hell, if it was Winchester making hunting ammunition we would not be discussing it. at least, I wouldn't be...:biggrin:

Very true.

Old fashioned black powder =

Potassium nitrate + carbon + sulfur

Provides 1/2 of the NPK-Ca-Mg-Su nutrients a plant needs !


So much of the behavior of the US gov. & corp. America is anti-People, it really is like a Death Cult.

I hear people use that term, and it seems like Hyperbole, but, shit, what is so important about pushing the state of the art of toxic technologies ?!

There are so many organic non-toxic technologies.


As far as military explosives, you need extremely high energy materials to make it happen. e.g. to make PETN.

Those kinds of materials tend to be toxic. i.e. chemical compounds that can pack a few more megajoules into a kilogram of explosive. It doesn't happen with the nice materials I use for making CO2 for my plants (sugar + water + yeast).

It takes gnarly high-energy chemicals. Cyanide is one example of a gnarly high-energy chemical, though it's high energy-ness is more useful for gold and plastics manufacturing than for explosives.


What I was going to say about the Green New Deal is, they should concentrate on goals that are Do-able.

e.g. Aqueducts & water storage, so flooded parts of the US can share their water with drought areas.
 
Top