Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Last 30 Days

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

Clearly, the abundant far-right commenters, who feel no responsibility to anyone -- anyone American, let alone Arizonan -- until they themselves get stuck, are targeting The Weekly for special scrutiny. Their strategy: destroy the media's credibility (personalize the attacks if you can), state and repeat lies and half-lie as if they were the truth, and eventually the populace will be softened up enough to belief their reactionary crap. Only, it doesn't work. Note that every far-right bleat gets three to four to a dozen times the Dislikes as Likes. Still, they keep at it. Except for their pathetic attempts to soil The Range and The Weekly, they have no way of fundamentally doing anything about life here in AZ; being consistently negative is what keeps them feeling important and potent. What a pathetic lot.

9 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Just Sayin'.... on 05/21/2017 at 1:59 PM

Re: “The New Teacher Certification Rules: Is Everyone Else Wrong, or Am I?

The plan is to water down the quality of teaching to the point that all schools "fail." Then corporate raiders can take them over, collect tax money and close them down and transfer their loot offshore. We can stop this now. Get out and vote!

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Shirley Willis on 05/21/2017 at 1:24 AM

Re: “Seth MacFarlane and His Peculiar Distaste For Tucson

Whenever I'm in Tucson and ask someone there if they like Tucson and they respond with oh I just love Tucson. I have to ask myself where the hell are they from? Chicago or maybe Detroit! All the dumb baseless arrogance. The best thing that ever came out of Tucson was interstate 10!

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Rickie Garrat on 05/20/2017 at 9:08 PM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

Lets see. District schools were designed by racists to keep Catholics and minorities out. They are very effective at doing that - 99% of the public is excluded from these schools. To call them "public" schools in two ways. First, they are not open to the public.

Second, there has never been an experiment to test as to whether they are really schools for children in poverty neighborhoods. To do that, you would have to randomly assign students, one to a district school, one to a detention center to see which one would end up with greater academic achievement.

Arizona is the only state in the nation to have a legitimate claim to have a public school system. Every school in our state is open to every student through our public education system.

Now, you want to vote to exclude some of those from some of those schools.

Two different visions for public education. Some people who want to ensure that the worst teacher in the worst school in the worst school district has a full classroom.

While some of us want to ensure that there are so many choices that every full classroom is evidence of a teacher who is among the best in the world.

8 likes, 27 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 05/20/2017 at 5:11 PM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

Patriot 2

You didn't add the 15.3% for Social Security and Medicare taxes or the 13.3% California income tax and the 8% sales tax when you go to spend the money you make.

2 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 05/20/2017 at 2:26 PM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

Why would parents vote against their own self interests? Let it go.Your desire for public school domination is unreal.

14 likes, 34 dislikes
Posted by Give a kid a chance on 05/20/2017 at 6:17 AM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

The lay of the land is different in Utah. They do not have as extensive a Catholic schools network as Arizona does, and so one significant interest group that will put its collective efforts behind defending vouchers is absent there.

You assert that all the adult voters in the households of the 92% of students enrolled in public schools before the ESA bill passed will see an anti-voucher vote as something that promotes their "self-interest." However:
--Among the 92% enrolled in public schools before that bill passed will be some who intend to use the ESAs to leave public schools.
--There will be some families with a child or children in privates and a child or children in publics as well. It seems unlikely that they will vote against ESAs.
--Hard as it may be for you to believe, there are actually some people all of whose children are in public schools who don't want to use the children of other families as economic hostages to the dubious goal of supposedly "saving" troubled public school districts. They recognize that it is in the community's best interest if other people are able to place their children in schools where they will thrive and succeed. There are, for example, a lot of parents of children in well-managed public school districts in Southern Arizona who don't think anyone's children should be imprisoned on sinking ships like TUSD, and who would be happy if families within the boundaries of TUSD were given the opportunity to spend their per pupil funding anywhere they chose -- in another school district, in a charter, OR in a Catholic or Independent school, if that is the family's preference.

Framing education policy the way you do -- in broad categories like "PUBLIC DISTRICT" vs. "CHARTER" vs. "PRIVATE" -- and then assuming these categories have constituents whose policy aims and opinions are unified as they defend what you imagine to be their "self-interest" oversimplifies to the point of absurdity a landscape in American (and Arizonan) education that is considerably more complex, diverse, and difficult to interpret than you make it out to be.

But I guess, after the embarrassing gaffes of the past year (so-called Democrats' and supporters-of-public-schools' active support of 123 being the most conspicuous among them) folks who were previously duped and led astray have to have something to contemplate that cheers them up. Simplistic fantasies about how things will play out in our collective political future may be helpful as a mood-altering supplement to the daily depressing dose of reality that the news-feed from Phoenix provides.

17 likes, 25 dislikes
Posted by Weak analysis; try again. on 05/19/2017 at 6:57 PM

Re: “The Skinny

BSLAP, aren't you that Russian troll that I advised to drink large amounts of prune juice and to take fistfulls of sleeping pills?
How did that work out for you? Or was that CW13?
But I digress. Tell me all about Vladivostok.

11 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by JoelFriday on 05/18/2017 at 8:05 PM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

You are several years behind the curve. England has already done a "fat cat" tax and it was a disaster.

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than 1 million to HM Revenue and Customs. This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax.

Increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a large loss in revenues for the British Government.

Since the US implemented supply side economics in the US starting in 1981, our jobs have increased by 50%, jobs in England have only increased by 22% and even less in France - 12%.

If we cared about our students, we would be sure to have jobs waiting for them by implementing scientific taxation - a top federal rate of 25%, not the current 40%, plus 12% California state tax, plus 14% Social Security = 66%.

6 likes, 17 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 05/18/2017 at 5:15 PM

Re: “The Skinny

Her days as our congressperson are numbered. Tucson, it's time to take out the trash, vote her 'the fuck' out!

16 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by HumanBean on 05/18/2017 at 4:53 PM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

I'm not talking corporate taxes I'm talking personal taxes. Every piece of democratic legislation is designed to punish the individual that has become successful by laddering tax brackets. personal exemptions are gone except the mortgage interest, and things like the Affordable care Act even punished higher income people.

Married Filing Joint Taxable Income Tax Brackets and Rates, 2017
Rate Taxable Income Bracket Tax Owed
10%
$0 to $18,650 10% of taxable income
15%
$18,650 to $75,900 $1,865 plus 15% of the excess over $18,650
25%
$75,900 to $153,100 $10,452.50 plus 25% of the excess over $75,900
28%
$153,100 to $233,350 $29,752.50 plus 28% of the excess over $153,100
33%
$233,350 to $416,700 $52,222.50 plus 33% of the excess over $233,350
35%
$416,700 to $470,700 $112,728 plus 35% of the excess over $416,700
39.60%
$470,700+ $131,628 plus 39.6% of the excess over $470,700

When you make it they take it.

5 likes, 15 dislikes
Posted by Patriot 2 on 05/18/2017 at 2:36 PM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

That's exactly right Patriot. Under progressive vision the rich should work hard, take risks and surrender their earnings for others. What could possibly motivate them? Lower tax rates elsewhere, leaving the US a virtual wasteland of losers.

Please work to become rich and stop confiscating someone else's money.

8 likes, 19 dislikes
Posted by Patriot 2 on 05/18/2017 at 11:43 AM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

Just a note here. Since 1980, on the federal level, the very rich and large corporations now pay 1/4th of what they did from the 50's - 70's. Starting with Reagan the very rich have received about 15 rounds of tax breaks. Republicans have shifted some of that lose to the bottom 90% and covered the rest with deficits and spending cuts to education, infrastructure etc. Somehow, even paying higher taxes, the wealthy were still wealthy back then.

21 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Kenneth Groves on 05/18/2017 at 11:41 AM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

How dare you tax my cat.......oh sorry.

5 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Gandalf the Wit on 05/18/2017 at 11:39 AM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

Bad idea. High tax rates in the U.K. is why the Beatles had to move, we do not need to go though that again do we?

4 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Gandalf Remembers on 05/18/2017 at 11:36 AM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

Except that 'the rich' (LOL) already pay the lion's share of all taxes and the poor pay zilch. Save this socialist crap for people who are too self involved and uniformed. It doesn't wash for anyone who has ever worked their way out of poverty aka has grown up in the true sense of the word.

7 likes, 24 dislikes
Posted by Patriot 1 on 05/18/2017 at 9:47 AM

Re: “Momcologist Crusade

Go Jude!

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by SonoranWinds on 05/18/2017 at 9:38 AM

Re: “The New Teacher Certification Rules: Is Everyone Else Wrong, or Am I?

We will have plenty of Ben Steins teaching the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Anyone? Anyone? You do realize that Charter and private religious schools, already can hire and many do, uncertified teachers. This means Jay Lawrence can go into a classroom, maybe 7th grade math, that would be a nice challenge.

9 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Frances Perkins on 05/18/2017 at 9:19 AM

Re: “Education Budgeting

Are you sorry yet, David Safier, that you decided to "hold your nose" and help Ducey et al. get Prop 123 passed?

Looks a lot like all the sophisticated politicos in your network who like to talk about "wedges" and levers and believe they know how to pull strings behind the scenes, patching together big scary "NEXT STEPS!" coalitions etc., ad nauseam, and trying generally to play hard ball with the big boys have ended up with quite a bit of egg on their faces.

Too bad you joined them and helped them embarrass themselves, or now you would be in a good position to make the point that the right way to build coalitions is basing them on sound principles, not on inadvisable concessions made to bad actors.

11 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Sorry yet for promoting Prop 123? on 05/18/2017 at 8:23 AM

Re: “The Skinny

Not one mention of mental health issues in your abysmal journalistic attempt. Maybe you'll get 'em next time, Jim. Oh, and thanks for the embarrassingly pointless polling information.

3 likes, 31 dislikes
Posted by RevSPB on 05/18/2017 at 8:19 AM

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation