American Politics IV: 1400 Reasons Why(A Stimulus Serial)

[The Marlborough]

No you're not, I said tax the fucking rich in the area, rich people who work or live in the cities or do business in the city should be taxed, yet you have a fucking problem with it, because you like bootlick to the rich corporatists.

Why can't the rural poor be sponsored with city taxes to move into the city?

Because that wouldn't solve the issue? Plus you can't have everyone live in the cities.

How about this: no city can have more than 2.5 million residents. Cities above this mark must expel their excess population into the boondocks.

[Neutraligon]

The urban poor already have city jobs, city education (well at least through highschool, and affording anything beyond that would not be easy), and city healthcare; they are still the urban poor.

The urban poor should completely be supported by the city beyond high school, that way they'll be educated enough to generate more revenue for the city.

And there will still be need for people to work the tills and stock the shelves and clean the floors. And those individuals will still be the urban poor.

[San Lumen]

And somehow that's going to magically give you enough money to build new water pipes or infrastructure?

Why has nowhere done such a simple solution? I don't boot lick anyone. I want the rich taxed more and we stop balding luxury penthouses for them they don't even live in but if the solution was as simple as you make it out to be it would have been done. It has nothing to do with campaign contributions.

No rural member of the state legislature here has ever proposed such a bill and I doubt anywhere else. Why don't they?

Yes.

Because the rich are the government.

If it was so simple then it would have been proposed. The rich are the government of Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa or Tennessee? Their state legislature is all uber rich people?

Why hasn't the legislature of any of these places proposed and passed a bill like the one you want?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why can't the rural poor be sponsored with city taxes to move into the city?

Because that wouldn't solve the issue? Plus you can't have everyone live in the cities.

How about this: no city can have more than 2.5 million residents. Cities above this mark must expel their excess population into the boondocks.

Based and ruralpilled.

[San Lumen]

Why can't the rural poor be sponsored with city taxes to move into the city?

Because that wouldn't solve the issue? Plus you can't have everyone live in the cities.

How about this: no city can have more than 2.5 million residents. Cities above this mark must expel their excess population into the boondocks.

You can't cap a city population. Thats not practical nor feasible plus the government cannot tell you where to reside.

[Dresderstan]

Yes.

Because the rich are the government.

If it was so simple then it would have been proposed. The rich are the government of Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa or Tennessee? Their state legislature is all uber rich people?

Why hasn't the legislature of any of these places proposed and passed a bill like the one you want?

Yes.

Because the Rich don't care about the poor, only money and power for themselves.

[The Marlborough]

Because that wouldn't solve the issue? Plus you can't have everyone live in the cities.

How about this: no city can have more than 2.5 million residents. Cities above this mark must expel their excess population into the boondocks.

You can't cap a city population. Thats not practical nor feasible plus the government cannot tell you where to reside.

All of this is wrong. Internal passports will be needed however.

[Sundiata]

Why can't the rural poor be sponsored with city taxes to move into the city?

Because that wouldn't solve the issue? Plus you can't have everyone live in the cities.

How about this: no city can have more than 2.5 million residents. Cities above this mark must expel their excess population into the boondocks.

Everyone can absolutely live in cities. We don't have to have homeless people, we choose to.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because that wouldn't solve the issue? Plus you can't have everyone live in the cities.

How about this: no city can have more than 2.5 million residents. Cities above this mark must expel their excess population into the boondocks.

Everyone can absolutely live in cities. We don't have to have homeless people.

That's neither feasible nor desirable.

[San Lumen]

If it was so simple then it would have been proposed. The rich are the government of Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa or Tennessee? Their state legislature is all uber rich people?

Why hasn't the legislature of any of these places proposed and passed a bill like the one you want?

Yes.

Because the Rich don't care about the poor, only money and power for themselves.

You can't be serious. Your simply generalizing when you make statements like that. What's your proof the Missouri, Iowa Tennessee legislature is made of mostly millionaires? The answer is their is none because its not true.

[Sundiata]

Everyone can absolutely live in cities. We don't have to have homeless people.

That's neither feasible nor desirable.

It's more desirable than having homeless people, that's disgusting.

[Dresderstan]

Yes.

Because the Rich don't care about the poor, only money and power for themselves.

You can't be serious. Your simply generalizing when you make statements like that. What's your proof the Missouri, Iowa Tennessee legislature is made of mostly millionaires? The answer is their is none because its not true.

Prove it.

[The Marlborough]

If it was so simple then it would have been proposed. The rich are the government of Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa or Tennessee? Their state legislature is all uber rich people?

Why hasn't the legislature of any of these places proposed and passed a bill like the one you want?

Yes.

Because the Rich don't care about the poor, only money and power for themselves.

Speaking as someone who has recently came into a considerable amount of money, this isn't entirely accurate. I still support unions and other such stuff. I just suddenly decided flat income tax systems are based however.

[San Lumen]

You can't be serious. Your simply generalizing when you make statements like that. What's your proof the Missouri, Iowa Tennessee legislature is made of mostly millionaires? The answer is their is none because its not true.

Prove it.

Why don't you since you made the outlandish claim?

[Dresderstan]

Prove it.

Why don't you since you made the outlandish claim?

Prove it.

[The Marlborough]

Because that wouldn't solve the issue? Plus you can't have everyone live in the cities.

How about this: no city can have more than 2.5 million residents. Cities above this mark must expel their excess population into the boondocks.

Everyone can absolutely live in cities. We don't have to have homeless people, we choose to.

You do know we can house homeless people in regular towns, right? Further, a number of industries are always going to be more rural based. Mining, forestry, energy production, agriculture. We kind of need these things.

[Neutraligon]

That's neither feasible nor desirable.

It's more desirable than having homeless people, that's disgusting.

The option isn't just between homeless people and living in the city...you are aware of that yes? And cities are very well known for having homelessness issues.

[Neutraligon]

Why don't you since you made the outlandish claim?

Prove it.

Here, have at it, both of you https://ballotpedia.org/Comparison_of_s ... e_salaries

[The Marlborough]

It's more desirable than having homeless people, that's disgusting.

The option isn't just between homeless people and living in the city...you are aware of that yes? And cities are very well known for having homelessness issues.

Yeah doesn't LA have the largest homeless population in the USA? Not to mention the crisis in San Francisco.

[San Lumen]

You can't cap a city population. Thats not practical nor feasible plus the government cannot tell you where to reside.

All of this is wrong. Internal passports will be needed however.

how about no. The government has no right to tell you where you can reside.

Why don't you since you made the outlandish claim?

Prove it.

The burden of proof is on you since your the one who made the claim.

[Esalia]

That's neither feasible nor desirable.

It's more desirable than having homeless people, that's disgusting.

We can eliminate homelessness and not herd everyone into cities.

[Neutraligon]

The option isn't just between homeless people and living in the city...you are aware of that yes? And cities are very well known for having homelessness issues.

Yeah doesn't LA have the largest homeless population in the USA? Not to mention the crisis in San Francisco.

Depends, I think New York is higher than LA since 1/5 is homeless there.

[Dresderstan]

All of this is wrong. Internal passports will be needed however.

how about no. The government has no right to tell you where you can reside.

Prove it.

The burden of proof is on you since your the one who made the claim.

No, I'm not gonna waste my time with someone who won't listen, I don't have time for someone so stubborn like you.

[San Lumen]

how about no. The government has no right to tell you where you can reside.
The burden of proof is on you since your the one who made the claim.

No, I'm not gonna waste my time with someone who won't listen, I don't have time for someone so stubborn like you.

Why arent you willing to prove your claim? Many state legislatures are part time and don't play a lot. Some are volunteer like New Mexico.

Tell me again how they are all millionaires: https://ballotpedia.org/Comparison_of_s ... e_salaries

[The Marlborough]

Prove it.

Here, have at it, both of you https://ballotpedia.org/Comparison_of_s ... e_salaries

Tbf you have to account for what they were making before they went into office as well as their net worth. At the federal level they are considerably well off and I'd be surprised if it was radically different at the state level.