RedDenver

The pizza was really good. I think it took 2-3 minutes, but I don't remember exactly.

Is it electric, gas, or wood fired?

Fancy is the #1 F word for someone drinking from that cocktail glass.

The fact that people don't understand what taxes pay for... is so weird to me. Lower taxes is penny wise and pound foolish, as has been shown over and over again.

Ah yes, the supply side economics makes a comeback. Remember when Kansas was going to be the experiment that showed how great it was?

Makes sense

I think most of the love for Deion being Nebraska's coach was in a different thread.

I talked to a lawyer (she's a corporate contracts lawyer, not a in sports or labor law though) that said Title IX only applies to equality of participation for players, she thinks that the universities can pay the players as a separate entity and not as employees to avoid Title IX salary issues. It's a new area of the law though, so no one really knows what will happen.

Fancy is #1?

that image doesn't render for me

No worries, I'm making an orthogonal point, which is easy to misunderstand. Admitting fault on a message board is impressive, so kudos to you, sir.

Yes - that's my point. She was arrested for breaking the law. But it was clearly not a riot despite your claim: "If it breaks laws, it’s not a protest. It’s a riot." Yes, we completely agree here. I think you are missing the point. Read what I wrote again.

Rosa Parks broke the law with her protest to not give up her seat. The Greensboro sit-ins were protests where people were arrested for trespassing. Sometimes protests must break the law and that doesn't make them riots.

I took a look back at some of the early posts in this thread and found a couple of good calls:

I agree with you in this case. But I think it's also important to remember that throughout history the rules and laws are often made to minimize or prevent protests, so protests not following the rules is mostly how they've had to operate. So it's somewhat a matter of if the rules Columbia has for protesting allow for real protests or not, which I think they do in this case.

The wealth taxes incentivize spending and spreading wealth (i.e. not accumulating as much), both of which strengthen the economy by increasing the flow of money through the system. Capital gains taxes incentivize holding capital and not realizing the gains, so it cannot do the same thing as a wealth tax.

Seems like a griddle would work really well for pizza. I don't have a pizza oven but some friends have the Ooni brand that they like.

I doubt that, which part of the Constitution are you thinking of? Yeah, I haven't had the time to spend more than a few quick google searches and couldn't find a link to the exact proposal either. Thanks for that link though, I'll take a look at it later.

We've had this same discussion on a wealth tax years ago. I'm not in favor of this particular proposal as I think the 25% rate is too high and/or the $100 million threshold is too low. But in general a wealth tax is not a bad idea IMO, which I know you vehemently disagree with. If I was to change the proposal, I would propose something more along the lines of an annual 10% unrealized capital gains tax on wealth over $1 billion. Although a 1% unrealized gains tax starting at $100 million and going up an additional 1% for every $100 million also seems reasonable to me. The biggest problem with any unrealized gains tax is that it greatly matters how the gains are measured. Is it on Jan 1 at midnight? Some average over the past 3 years? 10 years? As Archy points out, what happens if they lose a ton of that wealth the next year? So while I think a wealth tax is fine in concept, in practice it's very hard to see how it would be fairly and consistently applied, which is why I think an inheritance tax (or death tax for the melodramatic) makes a lot more sense. Yes

150 vs 250,000,000 years ago - and one is geological and the other the political. Comparison seems par for the course for Archy.

You're both drawing conclusions based on second or third hand information. What's the actual proposal?

Has anyone actually found what the proposal actually says? Seems like there are a lot of misleading or down right lies about this. I've looked around and all I can find is references to a 25% tax on unrealized captial gains for those with more than $100 million in wealth: If that's true, then it's not going affect anyone's house appreciating unless you've got a $100+ million mansion.

Yeah, it's not like both of those have already happened in American history, so they surely don't make sense.

With all the tampering going on, he probably already knows what he will get elsewhere. Might just be leaving for more money.

For-profit prisons don't help either.