#428 in a series
- I don’t understand the difference between satire and real news
- I don’t understand the concept of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech and press clauses
- I don’t know what the word ‘collusion’ means
#428 in a series
Why is a graduated income tax — you know, what we’ve had for basically everyone’s life — is so hard for conservatives to understand? I mean, they pay taxes, too, right?
“If I earn $10 million, they want to take 70% of everything I earn!” they scream. No, we want 70% of any amount OVER ten million a year. It’s not that difficult of a concept, whereas the percentage changes with different income levels. If you’ve ever paid taxes before in your life, you should be aware of it.
Here’s how it works:
The current proposal raises the rate for the extremely very wealthy, asking for 70% for income above $10 million — which would affect a very small number of Americans. And that’s even less than what the very rich paid in the 50s and 60s. You know, those terrible days when we built interstate highways, provided free college education, and went to the Moon.
Further, Democratic proposals want to reduce the amount paid for those under $50,000 (which is the majority of Americans) which can easily be done if we raise it on the very wealthy. This will help the economy tremendously, because when we non-rich people have money, we spend it on things we need!
Oh, wait. I see now. The Republicans claiming that Democrats want 70% of your income are lying to make people hate this idea. Silly me. Should have used Occam’s Razor to begin with.
Stop treating your children like property. Stop treating them like slaves.
Sure, you need to discipline them and sure they don’t have the freedom of an adult, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t people who suffer and feel pain.
It is wrong to hit your wife; it is wrong to hit your husband; it is wrong to hit your friends; it is wrong to hit strangers; it is wrong to hit your pets; it is wrong to hit anyone — yet some parents think it is perfectly fine to beat their children. (And no, the argument that “I was beaten and I turned out okay” doesn’t work. You’re not okay, because you think it is fine to hit children.)
Some parents have complained that there are now laws prohibiting them from smoking in the same car when children are present, despite the clear and obvious danger this poses to young lungs. These same parents don’t whine when they can’t smoke in an airplane or bus, but the car is their property and they apparently think their children are, too.
Other parents refuse to vaccinate their children because of their own ridiculous beliefs, not taking into consideration that the children who are affected might choose way differently if they were adults and had the scientific information available to them. Why this isn’t seen as dangerous as telling them to play in the traffic is beyond me.
Often, religion is used to justify child abuse (and no, I’m not just talking about obvious illegal sex abuse we’ve seen in the Catholic church). Parents use religion to justify beating their children because the Bible says it is okay. (It also says slavery is okay.) Some religions refuse medical treatment for children because they think Jeebus will heal them or something. (Fortunately, this is illegal.) And don’t get me started on circumcision.
If you’re getting upset at what I am writing, please stop and consider why that is. Think about how angry you get when you read about someone abusing their pets and ask if you’re being a hypocrite for not treating your children with the same respect as a dog. Start seeing children as people — small, helpless people who need us to make the kinds of good decisions for them that they are not yet capable of making. People who deserve not to be beaten and physically attacked, no matter how much you think they need it.
“Well, big deal. He had blackface on when he was in college. He’s not the same man, so he should be governor.”
“So what if he drank a lot of beer back then? He’s not the same guy, so he should be on the Supreme Court without a problem. People can change.”
I certainly am one who thinks people should be forgiven for past behavior if they have changed and realized their mistakes. I, for instance, made a lot of anti-gay jokes when I was younger when that was common, and I cringe at that when I consider it now.
But here’s the thing: I’m not trying to get elected or be on the Supreme Court.
We can and should hold certain positions to a higher standard. Lawyers should be held to higher standards than, say, garbage collectors — not because garbage collectors don’t deserve respect for what they do, but because we lawyers represent others. How can we provide competent legal services to all if we are prejudiced against some? Our daily job requires us to treat everyone fairly (unlike garbage collectors who don’t actually deal with people on a day to day basis).
And don’t get me started about police officers who show bias.
We should set especially high standards for those who literally are our representatives. We should have people in our government who are of the highest ethics and show no prejudices.
It’s not like the governor of Virginia is the only qualified guy to hold that position. It’s not like Kavanaugh is the only lawyer who could fill the Supreme Court’s spot. We can do better, and we should demand better.
Let’s not lower our standards to meet whatever qualifications they have — let’s raise it and find someone who can meet it.