The senator did not seem to understand that the ruling on embryos would lead to fewer children being born, not more.
One of the most maddening aspects of the Republican plot to control women’s bodies is that, in many cases, these people couldn’t pass a ninth-grade biology class (and oftentimes, it’s more like fifth grade). Yes, from claiming an ectopic pregnancy can be reimplanted to suggesting that the anatomy of a human female is no different from that of, say, a dog or a horse, the conservatives trying to take away reproductive rights and bodily autonomy often have no idea what the f–k they’re talking about. And Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville is obviously no exception.
When asked on Thursday if he had “a reaction to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on the fact that embryos are children,” Tuberville said, “Yeah, I was all for it. We need to have more kids, we need to have an opportunity to do that, and I thought this was the right thing to do.” Informed that IVF is a method by which people are able to have children when they otherwise could not, and that some clinics have paused the procedure as a result of the ruling, Tuberville responded, “Well, that’s for another conversation. We need more kids. We need people to have the opportunity to have kids.”
After another reporter asked what he had to “say to the women right now in Alabama who no longer have access to IVF, and will not, as a result of this ruling,” a clearly stumped Tuberville answered: “That’s a hard one. It really is. Really hard. ’Cause, again, you want people to have that opportunity…. We need more kids.”
Sales tax is fine, with carve outs for food and essentials. Do you live somewhere that charges sales tax on food? Campaign for removing that and see if you can help.
In theory, sales taxes are great because they apply at the point where any given thing is entering the economy and not when it is produced (in effect, super efficient from a macroeconomic tax policy standpoint). In reality they have the largest negative impact on the poor/middle class and almost no impact on the rich. Basically, they take from those who can least afford it which is the opposite of an ideal tax system.
Sales taxes are also some of the biggest government bureaucracies that exist. The most complicated tax laws are all about sales taxes because they’re the perfect place to punish types of consumption that are bad for society (e.g. cigarettes, gas guzzler taxes, etc). This leads to endless specifications about how much and whether or not sales tax should apply to any given good.
Income taxes are much better from an, “ideal tax system” standpoint. The only major flaw with them is the endless exemptions and loopholes that the US version has built up over time. If there weren’t so many exceptions, exemptions, and complexity it would benefit everyone… Even those that endlessly lobby to lower their tax burden.
imo wealth taxes make the most sense. Tax every organization and individual equally. The ones with the most pay the most. The ones with nothing pay nothing.
Encourages spending what you have and not hoarding onto wealth for the sake of hoarding wealth.
imo the nonprofit system and tax exemption is broken. That’s why you have incredibly affluent people who own and operate a “foundation” where all their wealth resides, because putting the wealth there was a tax writeoff and they are still the owner, beneficiary and controller of the assets that are no longer “theirs”. Sauce: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-private-nonprofits-ultrawealthy-tax-deductions-museums-foundation-art
The rich spend a far lower proportion of their income than the poor. Which is why they like sales taxes.
Show me how this does not disproportionately effect the bottom 50% and how it doesn’t strongly favor the wealthy and then i’ll agree with your statement that justifies the rest of what you’re saying.
Sales tax is not fine. The poor pay more than the rich. This is a problem that lets the rich get richer while the poor have less and less.