• 0 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle



  • It would be hard to say confidently that any given rhetoric hasn’t been captured by some purpose opposed to its overt intent. Words are more like Go than Checkers, and that’s part of the difficulty here. There’s a recursive pattern to this discussion: expressing a sentiment that the former statement has or may have been captured by malign intent. The urge to repeat that pattern is I would guess why there is writing here rather than none, and that isn’t bad even if it doesn’t exactly get anyone any closer to seeing the real big picture.









  • IMO the most valid argument is that there are way more people making a middling income than people making a high income, so any reduction in taxes for those people would need a proportionally much larger increase in the upper brackets to maintain the same level of tax revenue, if it’s possible to make the numbers work at all depending on how much of a tax break you want to give. The minimum amount to be taxed is set based on where the tail end of the bell curve is, the number of people who are poor enough not to be taxed is small.

    Of course there’s also the fact that the richest people don’t get their money from having a job at all, it’s all in investments, so messing with income tax rates doesn’t even affect them.


  • The biggest reason that is often overlooked is wealth inequality. The rich keep accumulating wealth, and real estate is a scarce form of wealth that holds value, produces a return, and can be accumulated. It probably accelerated recently because of the large amount of money that was dumped into the system around covid; that was yet another opportunity for the wealthy to grab a bigger share of the pie.

    If things keep going this way, we’re going to get into a situation where regular people don’t own houses anymore, and rent is a much larger percentage of your income.



  • do they need to? I don’t think so.

    Why not? How can you be sure that all these laws are going to be about all the same things and not have many tricky edge cases? What would keep them from being like that? Again, these laws give unique rights to residents of their respective states to make particular demands of websites, and they aren’t copy pastes of each other. There’s no documented ‘best practices’ that is guaranteed to encompass all of them.

    they don’t want this solution, however, but in my understanding instead to force every state to have weaker privacy laws

    I can’t speak to what they really want privately, but in the industry letter linked in the article, it seems that the explicit request is something like a US equivalent of the GDPR:

    A national privacy law that is clear and fair to business and empowering to consumers will foster the digital ecosystem necessary for America to compete.

    To me that seems like a pretty sensible thing to be asking for; a centrally codified set of practices to avoid confusion and complexity.


  • In 2022, industry front groups co-signed a letter to Congress arguing that “[a] growing patchwork of state laws are emerging which threaten innovation and create consumer and business confusion.” In 2024, they were at it again this Congress, using the term four times in five paragraphs.

    Big Tobacco did the same thing.

    Is this really a fair comparison though? A variety of local laws about smoking in restaurants makes sense because restaurants are inherently tied to their physical location. A restaurant would only have to know and follow the rules of their town, state and country, and the town can take the time to ensure that its laws are compatible with the state and country laws.

    A website is global. Every local law that can be enforced must be followed, and the burden isn’t on legislators to make sure their rules are compatible with all the other rules. Needing to make a subtly different version of a website to serve to every state and country to be in full compliance with all their different rules, and needing to have lawyers check over all of them would create a situation where the difficulty and expense of making and maintaining a website or other online service is prohibitive. That seems like a legitimate reason to want unified standards.

    To be fair there are plenty of privacy regulations that this wouldn’t apply to, like the example the article gives of San Francisco banning the use of facial recognition tech by police. But the industry complaint linked in the article references laws like https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa and https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-190 that obligate websites to fulfill particular demands made by residents of those states respectively. Subtle differences in those sorts of laws seems like something that could cause actual problems, unlike differences in smoking laws.