this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
806 points (99.8% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2339 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A new "millionaire's tax" in Massachusetts was expected to generate $1 billion in revenue last year to help pay for public education, infrastructure, and early childcare programs, but projections were a bit off, according to a fresh state analysis.

The state Department of Revenue estimated late last week that the Fair Share Amendment, which requires people with incomes over $1 million, to pay a 4% annual surtax, will add $1.5 billion to state coffers this fiscal year, which ends in June—surpassing expectations.

Universal free school meals, much-needed improvements to an aging public transportation system, and tuition-free education for community college students are just some of the programs Massachusetts' wealthiest residents have helped pay for after voters approved the law in 2022 amid growing calls across the United States to tax the richest households and corporations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (4 children)

That's a joke, but I have talked to libertarians who think that if the road is full of potholes, neighbors should come together and pay for the road to be repaved.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, we should actually all pool our money together for the repairs and maintenance. I wonder what we could call such a thing? Hmm 🤔

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A community, coming together communally, to pay for something the community uses, as a community? Hmmm, it's right on the tip of my tongue...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Libertarians try not to recreate society challenge: impossible

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

Honestly, libertarians are free to do that now. Where I live there are loads of both potholes and libertarians. What’s stopping them from practicing what they preach and fixing the problem themselves? They’d get more street cred (literally) that way. Be the change.

But no. The real answer is it’s always someone else’s problem, and that’s why government exists.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

I tend to somewhat agree: if someone believes that infrastructure should be privatized, I think their neighbors should come together and use that person to build a new speed bump on the road.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

I grew up in a college town where repaving did actually work like that: streets didn't get repaired at all unless a majority of the homeowners voted to approve a surtax to pay for it. In areas that were mostly college student rentals, the scumlord "homeowners" always voted against the surtax and the streets were nearly un-drivable, more like uneven dirt roads with big chunks of broken asphalt embedded in them.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I remember arguing with some guy on Reddit who thought the entire judicial system should be private and people would just go along with it because their reputation would be hurt if they didn't accept whatever punishment the private judges said they should get.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But... But... Chicoms! And social credits! And... And...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

As long as the social credit score is from a private company it's cool. That's why we all love Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Abritrationists