NationStates

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What? Both stupid solutions.

A local government not being able to tax is ridiculous.

People having to pay on a local level, for services delivered locally, perpetuates income inequality. It's why poor areas have either shitty infrastructure like water pipes and road, OR they have shitty schools. They can't afford both.

Are you SURE you're a Democrat?

Why should these towns go bankrupt? We could just end these stupid work from home requirements and ban on gatherings and let individual businesses decide. I don’t think some of our leaders realize the damage they are causing

Work from home is an absolutely brilliant solution, for those whose work is virtual already. That's a lot of IT, but also office workers.
There's going to be a whole lot more working from home after this is over. Whether you like it or not. Whether government likes it or not!

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What? Both stupid solutions.

A local government not being able to tax is ridiculous.

People having to pay on a local level, for services delivered locally, perpetuates income inequality. It's why poor areas have either shitty infrastructure like water pipes and road, OR they have shitty schools. They can't afford both.

Are you SURE you're a Democrat?

Why should these towns go bankrupt? We could just end these stupid work from home requirements and ban on gatherings and let individual businesses decide. I don’t think some of our leaders realize the damage they are causing

Work from home is an absolutely brilliant solution, for those whose work is virtual already. That's a lot of IT, but also office workers.
There's going to be a whole lot more working from home after this is over. Whether you like it or not. Whether government likes it or not!

Shrillland wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
People having to pay on a local level, for services delivered locally, perpetuates income inequality. It's why poor areas have either shitty infrastructure like water pipes and road, OR they have shitty schools. They can't afford both.

Are you SURE you're a Democrat?



Work from home is an absolutely brilliant solution, for those whose work is virtual already. That's a lot of IT, but also office workers.
There's going to be a whole lot more working from home after this is over. Whether you like it or not. Whether government likes it or not!

He is, but he also wants places to open up. As the months wear on, more and more are going to want to open things up just out of sheer fatigue. Remember, this is the first prolonged societal sacrifice the US has had to make in decades, so the spirit isn't what it was in the past. On top of that, Lumen's one of those people who needs people, and I don't mean that as an insult or criticism, I mean that he needs more social time than this mess allows.

Australian rePublic wrote:I don't understand Gladys' (Gladys is the governor of NSW)

hassling other states to open their borders, though. She could be instead trying to promote statewide tourism in her own state. Many NSW ski resorts are marketing themselves as "Don't go to QLD, come here instead", and Gladys should be supporting that cause. Considering that it's outside of peak tourism season in NSW (except, of coarse, for ski resorts). If people want to go on holidays, Gladys should be promoting holdaying in NSW out of season. If QLD don't open their borders till September, the northern half of the state will lose the peak of the tourism season. If it takes even longer, they'll lose the entire tourism season, and Anastasia (the governor of QLD) will lose the election on 31 October.

Long story short= tourism operators are the big losers of closed borders. That's why most Australians who support opening borders want the borders to open.

Then you have billionaire, mining magnate, Clive Palmer, suing the Western Australian government because he has an unfair disadvantage over West Australians, because he can't travel to Western Australia in order to protect his own personal business interests

Shrillland wrote:Welp, Pritzker now has, due to Covid-related delays in filing unemployment claims, a possible recall petition: https://www.pjstar.com/news/20200526/republican-representative-begins-attempt-to-remove-pritzker-from-office

Stay tuned.

San Lumen wrote:

Shrillland wrote:Welp, Pritzker now has, due to Covid-related delays in filing unemployment claims, a possible recall petition: https://www.pjstar.com/news/20200526/republican-representative-begins-attempt-to-remove-pritzker-from-office

Stay tuned.

Wow!!! Do you think the requirements could be met? It seems like a tall order. If the unlikely event its successful what happens? Does the Lt. Governor take over?

Shrillland wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
People having to pay on a local level, for services delivered locally, perpetuates income inequality. It's why poor areas have either shitty infrastructure like water pipes and road, OR they have shitty schools. They can't afford both.

Are you SURE you're a Democrat?



Work from home is an absolutely brilliant solution, for those whose work is virtual already. That's a lot of IT, but also office workers.
There's going to be a whole lot more working from home after this is over. Whether you like it or not. Whether government likes it or not!

He is, but he also wants places to open up. As the months wear on, more and more are going to want to open things up just out of sheer fatigue. Remember, this is the first prolonged societal sacrifice the US has had to make in decades, so the spirit isn't what it was in the past. On top of that, Lumen's one of those people who needs people, and I don't mean that as an insult or criticism, I mean that he needs more social time than this mess allows.

Shrillland wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Wow!!! Do you think the requirements could be met? It seems like a tall order. If the unlikely event its successful what happens? Does the Lt. Governor take over?

No, we just have a recall election within 100 days of certification where all candidates of all certified parties(in Illinois that's just Democrats and Republicans) go against each other. It is a tall order though, and I'm not sure the state GOP wants to risk an open confrontation right now. He has two counter-signatures from the House and needs 28 more Representatives and 10 Senators before the petition can be circulated.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
He is, but he also wants places to open up. As the months wear on, more and more are going to want to open things up just out of sheer fatigue. Remember, this is the first prolonged societal sacrifice the US has had to make in decades, so the spirit isn't what it was in the past. On top of that, Lumen's one of those people who needs people, and I don't mean that as an insult or criticism, I mean that he needs more social time than this mess allows.

That's very understanding of you.

What he's got against working from home I have no idea. How does that impact him? Does it even impact the workers?

San Lumen wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
No, we just have a recall election within 100 days of certification where all candidates of all certified parties(in Illinois that's just Democrats and Republicans) go against each other. It is a tall order though, and I'm not sure the state GOP wants to risk an open confrontation right now. He has two counter-signatures from the House and needs 28 more Representatives and 10 Senators before the petition can be circulated.

Do you think that he could get the signatures? Most states that have recalls just have a petition process? This requirement of the legislature being involved seems unique

Shrillland wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Do you think that he could get the signatures? Most states that have recalls just have a petition process? This requirement of the legislature being involved seems unique

It's designed to be as impossible to clear as possible, which is why I voted against it when it came up. Not only do you need the signatures, you need to have 10% of voters in at least 25 counties(ensuring that Chicagoland and Kaneland-seven counties altogether- can't throw someone out on a whim).

San Lumen wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
People having to pay on a local level, for services delivered locally, perpetuates income inequality. It's why poor areas have either shitty infrastructure like water pipes and road, OR they have shitty schools. They can't afford both.

Are you SURE you're a Democrat?



Work from home is an absolutely brilliant solution, for those whose work is virtual already. That's a lot of IT, but also office workers.
There's going to be a whole lot more working from home after this is over. Whether you like it or not. Whether government likes it or not!

I’ve always been a moderate Democrat. I never considered myself a liberal. Your against school and property taxes then?

And what about all those small businesses who relied on office workers? They can all just go bankrupt and lose their livelihood and downtown becomes a ghost town?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I’ve always been a moderate Democrat. I never considered myself a liberal. Your against school and property taxes then?

I don't even know what taxes fund schools, it probably varies from place to place. Local sales tax (which is easier to avoid the richer you are), or land taxes (which are inherently regressive) are likely candidates.

But we don't do that here. Schools are funded by the State with a little help from the Feds. It should be all Federal imo, but it's not a huge deal: when taxes are spread over a whole state it's nearly as fair as nationwide.
I think the UK system is similar, schools are funded nationally. And local councils (equivalent of your county govt?) are too.
Australia (at least NSW) isn't quite as good as the UK. Our local councils can and do tax. But they don't have to fund schools.

"Fair" tax-and-spend being "from each according to their ability to pay, to each according to their need of money".

Well you don't have to agree with that, but I hope you see that kids in poor districts need MORE money, not less, to achieve the national median outcome. So funding schools locally perpetuates inequality, both immediately and over generations.

And what about all those small businesses who relied on office workers? They can all just go bankrupt and lose their livelihood and downtown becomes a ghost town?

What would you do about it? Would you have government ban working from home?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:I don't understand Gladys' (Gladys is the governor of NSW)

I don't mind you using a politician's first name, because I know her surname is very hard to spell.
Let's be consistent about it though. Do it for all politicians male or female, otherwise it looks patronizing in a sexist way.

"Most Australians who support opening borders" do not support opening borders. All of them do!

We have opinion polling here. Some of that could really help your case.

Where?

San Lumen wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
I don't even know what taxes fund schools, it probably varies from place to place. Local sales tax (which is easier to avoid the richer you are), or land taxes (which are inherently regressive) are likely candidates.

But we don't do that here. Schools are funded by the State with a little help from the Feds. It should be all Federal imo, but it's not a huge deal: when taxes are spread over a whole state it's nearly as fair as nationwide.
I think the UK system is similar, schools are funded nationally. And local councils (equivalent of your county govt?) are too.
Australia (at least NSW) isn't quite as good as the UK. Our local councils can and do tax. But they don't have to fund schools.

"Fair" tax-and-spend being "from each according to their ability to pay, to each according to their need of money".

Well you don't have to agree with that, but I hope you see that kids in poor districts need MORE money, not less, to achieve the national median outcome. So funding schools locally perpetuates inequality, both immediately and over generations.



What would you do about it? Would you have government ban working from home?

No I would not ban it but the government should not be mandating it

San Lumen wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Which is many restaurants are refusing to open till they're allowed 50. You can still get take away and sit on a beach or whatever. As Australia is coming into winter, the big losers will be tourism operators in northern Australia who rely on winter tourists coming from the south. In Northern Australia, now is prime tourism season, and mamy, many tourists come from the south, which is why they're advocating for the reopening of state borders.

I don't understand Gladys' (Gladys is the governor of NSW) hassling other states to open their borders, though. She could be instead trying to promote statewide tourism in her own state. Many NSW ski resorts are marketing themselves as "Don't go to QLD, come here instead", and Gladys should be supporting that cause. Considering that it's outside of peak tourism season in NSW (except, of coarse, for ski resorts). If people want to go on holidays, Gladys should be promoting holdaying in NSW out of season. If QLD don't open their borders till September, the northern half of the state will lose the peak of the tourism season. If it takes even longer, they'll lose the entire tourism season, and Anastasia (the governor of QLD) will lose the election on 31 October.

Long story short= tourism operators are the big losers of closed borders. That's why most Australians who support opening borders want the borders to open.

Then you have billionaire, mining magnate, Clive Palmer, suing the Western Australian government because he has an unfair disadvantage over West Australians, because he can't travel to Western Australia in order to protect his own personal business interests

Basically proving my point that many elected officials don’t see the damage they are causing

Australian rePublic wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
I don't mind you using a politician's first name, because I know her surname is very hard to spell.
Let's be consistent about it though. Do it for all politicians male or female, otherwise it looks patronizing in a sexist way.

I don't give a rat's arse about whether or not my attempts to avoid trying to spell "Berejiklian" or "Palaszczuk" are interpreted as sexist? If people can't understand that I call them by their first names because their surnames are hard to spell, that's their idiocy. Considering that the former calls herself "Gladys" on her own website, I very much doubt that even she expects people to attempt to spell "Berejiklian"

Where?

Considering the way he treated Townsville...

Australian rePublic wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
I don't mind you using a politician's first name, because I know her surname is very hard to spell.
Let's be consistent about it though. Do it for all politicians male or female, otherwise it looks patronizing in a sexist way.

I don't give a rat's arse about whether or not my attempts to avoid trying to spell "Berejiklian" or "Palaszczuk" are interpreted as sexist? If people can't understand that I call them by their first names because their surnames are hard to spell, that's their idiocy. Considering that the former calls herself "Gladys" on her own website, I very much doubt that even she expects people to attempt to spell "Berejiklian"

Where?

Considering the way he treated Townsville...

The Alma Mater wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:
I don't give a rat's arse about whether or not my attempts to avoid trying to spell "Berejiklian" or "Palaszczuk" are interpreted as sexist? If people can't understand that I call them by their first names because their surnames are hard to spell, that's their idiocy. Considering that the former calls herself "Gladys" on her own website, I very much doubt that even she expects people to attempt to spell "Berejiklian"


Considering the way he treated Townsville...

*insert powerpuff joke here*

Shrillland wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:
I don't give a rat's arse about whether or not my attempts to avoid trying to spell "Berejiklian" or "Palaszczuk" are interpreted as sexist? If people can't understand that I call them by their first names because their surnames are hard to spell, that's their idiocy. Considering that the former calls herself "Gladys" on her own website, I very much doubt that even she expects people to attempt to spell "Berejiklian"


Considering the way he treated Townsville...

Townsville? The whole country more like. ScoMo himself owes his continued premiership to Clive Palmer....but I won't get too far into that.

The Alma Mater wrote:*insert powerpuff joke here*

-Astoria wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:*insert powerpuff joke here*

^ This, right here.

Australian rePublic wrote:It appears to me that the places with the strictest lockdowns have the highest infections. From Victoria in Australia, to California in the USA

San Lumen wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Staying alive as a business should be the standard, not "making money". That you think businesses have a right to keep making profits when everyone else is suffering, really does not sit well with you claiming to be center-left (ie a Democrat).

It's their business, it's their call. Bear in mind though that if they choose to stay closed they'll still get the benefit of rent reduction or rent holiday (which, depends on the relative financial soundness of their business, but also the entity owning their property). And I'd like government subsidies for them too (compensation for negative impacts of government policy). AND lesser rent relief and subsidies, for those whose business is seriously impacted by social distancing etc requirements.

Even tattoo parlours. Even they would get the government largess, though I don't like them. IF they can show a plan like "PPE for customer and staff, no tattoos above the ribs" I'd let them reopen with no subsidy (with a backlog of customers they will still be working at capacity of the tattooist). If their proposal is unacceptable though, no they can't reopen but they do get a subsidy. And if they submit an acceptable plan but are caught in violation of it, they get shut down with no subsidy.

And how will they pay their bills?