Jump to content


Legacy Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


9,701 Surly 1%

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Did y'all give Costco permission to provide your contact information to the guy? I could see that being one question coming up while you were looking for him, so maybe check with your wife and see if she said it would be ok. I'll also say this, if you were to press a suit against Costco, they would have to provide the guys information in discovery and would probably move to include him in the lawsuit. You're two possible sources of recovery are from Costco and most likely the guy's homeowners insurance (if he has it). I wouldn't hold out much hope of collecting from the guy directly. I do think that based on your description of events and that Costco had a no dogs policy, that it is possible you a viable claim against Costco. Any idea what the total medical bill, including what your insurance pays, is going to be? @Prepuce of Doom also had a good idea on going through the media if Costco really just gave your information away without permission. That's crazy.
  2. You're right near some great places to score crack. Or at least that was true 15 years ago.
  3. I don't know that you directly addressed it in this thread, so mea culpa. If you support heavily progressive taxation, great. The implication of your prior post, and my general understanding of you from your posting history, was that you didn't.
  4. It's weird that you followed up with the post below. I'd say that is an example of someone resistant to "heavily progressive" taxation policies.
  5. I assume you either aren't actually addressing this to me or you misunderstood my post. This assumes that the new equilibrium results in a one-to-one increase in tax burden as to the new exemption levels. I don't think that is a safe assumption to make. While certainly a lower tax burden will allow home buyers more purchasing power when buying a new home, property taxes are only one small part of the cost considerations. Much more significant limiters are the down payment and monthly mortgage. Those costs aren't changing. I expect that whatever new equilibrium arises will still have lower overall tax burden for those with lower value houses. If your argument were accurate, then no tax decrease (via exemption or rate reduction) could have an overall benefit to homeowners. That is adding a lot of conditions that weren't part of the original post. More importantly though, I still struggle to understand how anyone that believes wealth disparity is that bad could oppose heavily progressive tax policies as both of you have done in this thread.
  6. Generally speaking, I would think increasing exemptions would be a more progressive option. Low valued properties would avoid a higher percentage of taxes compared to high value properties whereas changing rates reduces taxes proportionally across the board. But it all depends on the specifics.
  7. In Houston that would be a property with an appraised value of something like $1.7 mil. Surely this group of 10 bangers and 1%s can match that.
  8. If I believed at least 80% of households had to live with unacceptable income, as one of the few that may have acceptable levels of income I would feel morally obligated to support highly progressive tax rates and social structures so that 80% is adequately provided for. I mean, I support those things anyway. But I have a hard time understanding the mentality of someone who could believe that and not support a highly progressive tax structure.
  9. Well, the chart is in reference to income groups, not net wealth. So I'm not sure what the first part of your post has to do with anything. Stating that it generally isn't ideal for someone to be at the top 20% income threshold either suggests that you're out of touch or that you believe the US is a broke hell hole. Maybe it isn't ideal by the surly standards of banging 10s and being in the top 1%, but for the majority of Americans it would be a dream.
  10. What? I'm hoping you don't understand what bottom 80% means. Otherwise, this is a crazy out of touch statement along the lines of this:
  11. @fattyflattie is frequently unreasonable or misapprehends the facts or laws. But, he has also demonstrated the ability to change his mind, albeit slowly, given enough information. He is also one of the few on that side of the political spectrum (although what that side is even more, I'm unsure of it since many, including myself, previously would have identified with it) willing to actually engage in discussion rather trolling. I believe that he sincerely holds his positions, however flawed they may be, and for the most part avoids mere trolling.
  12. Judges are required to consider the assets available to the accused in deciding on bail. What the prosecution asks for isn't particularly relevant to that analysis. We long ago rejected the idea of debtor's prison. And the limitations on bail partly stem from that idea. You can't set a bail amount that cannot be met by the accused. The purpose of the bail system is not punishment, and is not to make sure the person has to stay in jail pre-trial. The purpose of the bail system is to ensure that the accused attends trial. That's it. If you need evidence of that, here is the horse's mouth: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.17.htm If prosecutors want to argue that an accused should be denied bail entirely, they are free to try and make that showing. But, keep in mind, in Texas (and elsewhere) there is "a rebuttable presumption that bail, conditions of release, or both bail and conditions of release are sufficient to reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance in court as required and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim of the alleged offense."
  13. We've had some experience with folks relying on information from morning shows and ending up with completely false information. Certainly, folks have committed crimes while out on bail. That isn't an indictment of any specific jurisdiction, but rather is the result of our justice system balancing the rights of the accused to the presumption of innocence and protection of society. We have constitutional and statutory rules and limits in place on bail requirements.
  14. I don't know why I wrote avoid originally. Maybe the bankruptcy cases I've been looking at recently.
  • Create New...