Wyoming could raise property taxes until the energy industry recovers 307 politics trib.com gas x dosage pregnancy

Rich people make more than their lowly hourly workers because they bring greater capital to the workplace. Do you honestly think that Elon Musk’s decisions have the same impact as an assembly employee at a Tesla factory? No, Musk’s capital is much more valuable to an enterprise and warrants higher pay. While I do agree that the minimum wage should be brought up to $11 to compensate for inflation, especially since the minimum wage is here to stay. As I said earlier too, most CEOs have a tax rate of 70% +, due to corporate tax + personal income tax. In actuality they may pay far less, but that’s because we have such an enormous complicated tax code. Would you not agree a flat tax with no deductions would be fairer, then people like Warren Buffet wouldn’t pay 13% income tax because they’d have no way to avoid it. I think the rich are taxed plenty, I think where people like you get mad is the fact they can avoid the taxes, but that’s all because of the IRS and their massive tax code, that’s simply people playing by the rules of the game. Raising taxes on them even more makes them more likely to exploit these loopholes since the benefits are greater, ultimately, a better tax policy would be simple and fair, as opposed to deductions, bureaucracy, and progressive. I don’t disagree with your point on military expenditures, the US should cut the military by 80% and protect our borders, our massive expenditures in the world do nothing, but lower the world’s opinion of us, because they’re too ignorant to understand all the good we’ve done them. I also agree that generally we send poor people to fight. Lol, archaic? Forget your meds brah? The SCOTUS continually updates its’ interpretations to apply an 18th century document to 21st century problems, it’s also vague enough to cover almost every legal problem encountered. It’s far from archaic, it’s a living and evolving document. The constitution does not need replaced, if anything, we should be hesitant to go beyond it. Majority rule is far, far, far, worse than the constitution. Segregation occurred because of majority rule in states, (majority of voting segregationist southerners either controlling offices or supporting segregation), gay people didn’t enjoy the equal protection clause because of majority rule (majority of voters occupying a state’s legislature or anti-gay marriage), or what about slavery (majority of voters occupying slave state legislatures or supporting slavery in slave states). Majority rule leads to ugly, ugly, results, the only way those three moral evils were solved was through the constitution. Art. III allowed the SCOTUS to strike down gay marriage bans and segregation, even though the majority at those state levels supported those laws. The war powers clause allowed Lincoln to emancipate the slaves in 1863, during the Civil War, and the legislative powers clause finally allowed the US to rid itself of slavery with the 13th am., even though the majorities in those slave states stood behind slavery. I can come up with hundreds of examples if you want, but majority rule tends to end badly, the constitution is our safeguard against these abuses, if you honestly think the constitution is in need of replacing, you’re ignorant, plain ignorant, go read about anything in American History or even the French Revolution if you think majority rule trumps a document which sets out procedures to protect the interests of smaller groups. Plus, as I have said, the constitution is a living document that continually updates, it’s now been the supreme law of the land for 200+ years, it’s here to stay, despite whatever left-wing non-sense you conjure up.