Hey guys, sorry I am tardy to the party- I was quite tired after all the flat tire madness and I'm still a little pooped. With respect to some of the conversations above, as usual, I feel that BT is a little too soft on corporations and too hard on government, and I continue to agree with Cirno on most counts, which still amazes me. I continue to disagree with White Knife in gelding regulatory agencies and then watching those regulatory agencies to make sure they do their job- that makes little sense to me. I wish I had more to add, but Cirno sums up my thoughts fairly well.
What would you think of the plan to actually reduce corporate taxes (thus keeping the less taxes = more jobs folks happy. IIRC America already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world) while simultaneously raising the capital gains tax back to the pre-Clinton levels? (Also IIRC, most CEO's get paid such obscene amounts mostly due to the fact that are not paid in cash, but in stocks and such.)? Would that be something that you believe would work?
Also, we should make this a new topic. I dont want to derail BT's thread.
I totally agree we should raise capital gains taxes!
Corporate taxes get to stay, though. The US may have the second highest in the world last I checked, but businesses aren't paying them. What needs to happen is tax reform to remove the rediculous loopholes, deductibles, and other tools. Multi-billionaires already pay less then we do. And corporations are much the same.
Of course, that's assuming they pay at all.
Taxes aren't socialism. Taxes aren't bad or evil or something you need "relief" from especially when you're already a multi-billionaire. Taxes are what we owe to ensure civilization.
And hey, if rich people don't want to pay taxes, they're free to "Go Galt," but if history has taught us anything it's that they won't, because for all their bluster they know that's a stupid, stupid decision. In almost every developed country that isn't the US, corporations pay more. And yet, surprisingly enough, they haven't yet "Gone Galt." Corporations also provide more jobs in areas in which they're taxed more, not less. A higher tax rate encourages businesses (who don’t want to pay taxes) to keep the profits in the business and reinvest, rather than pull them out as profits...
I disagree with you about taxes. Taxation is the act of taking money from the people who earned it by the force or the threat of force. Government is force, pure and simple. There are times when force is necessary, but I find the state using force to control basically every aspect of our lives to be a bad thing.
Your corporate tax example seems absurd to me because it seems to presume that those corporations won't simply leave. When a corporation decides to leave the country or off shore its manufacturing it's obviously not providing more jobs here.
Confiscating more and more money from "the rich" simply incentivizes them to move or keep that money off shore. The very wealthy are very mobile. If you tell billionaires that they have to give up some absurdly large portion of their money The Cayman Islands start looking pretty good. Further more confiscating the 1000 richest Americans entire net worth doesn't even make a dent in the national debt. Taxing the rich is not the panacea you seem to think it is. It won't make the government any less corrupt or incompetent. The government is like an addict. In my experience you don't do an addict much good when you just give them more money. I don't think the government's problem is that it doesn't have enough money. I think the government's problem is that it is hopelessly corrupt and stupid. I also think the fact that we voters keep giving these clowns more power and money calls our wisdom into question.
.....I agree that we need to starve the beast, but that beast ain't government. A small government is perfect for many politicians - it's too small to defend the citizens against those that would abuse and exploit them.
It seems to me that we currently have a very large government that abuses and exploits its citizens and still subsidizes corporations who abuse and exploit the citizens.
The government is looking pretty beastly to me.
It seems to me that we currently have a very large government that abuses and exploits its citizens and still subsidizes corporations who abuse and exploit the citizens.
The government is looking pretty beastly to me.
+1
Hey guys, sorry I am tardy to the party- I was quite tired after all the flat tire madness and I'm still a little pooped. With respect to some of the conversations above, as usual, I feel that BT is a little too soft on corporations and too hard on government, and I continue to agree with Cirno on most counts, which still amazes me. I continue to disagree with White Knife in gelding regulatory agencies and then watching those regulatory agencies to make sure they do their job- that makes little sense to me. I wish I had more to add, but Cirno sums up my thoughts fairly well.
I dunno how to further explain. Im not for castrating the regulatory agencies. Im simply for reducing their overall size. For instance, do we really need the BATFE when the FDA should be covering half of their acronym and the FBI the other half? A smaller, leaner government would lead, I believe, to better oversight both by commitee and by the public.
Professor Cirno, If you are saying that Regulatory agencies should be increased by way of paying the regulatory agents that actually do the jobs that they are mandated to do more and giving them the power to keep out of from under the thumb of the very things they are meant to regulate, I could get behind that.That is what I am suggesting :p
One idea I saw that has like billions of flaws but is so delicious at the same time is giving regulators financial incentive to bust. We complain that Police over enforce against drugs because Police Agencies get to keep portions of things like seized cash. Imagine if SEC members got to keep portions of seized funds from Wall Street crooks in a similar manner. I bet enforcement would shoot up very quickly.
Alternately we could solve the vast majority of our economic woes with a tax reform that stops targeting the poor and middle class with regressive taxes and instead creates a progressive tax that ensures economic equality, thus draining the swamp. On the other hand that would involve taxing billionaires and will thus never happen.
The abuse that would arise from this system would make the War on Drugs look like a picnic. It is a truly horrifying police state vision.
How do you think that the US tax code is regressive?
As usual, bt, we disagree on taxes. Giving people that make an unusually high amount of money ways to dodge taxes that you and I do not is no more fair than taking every dime they own. Taxation is an important part of government, as frustrating as it is. I would get behind a flat tax if I did not see the potential for abuse that comes along with it.
I disagree with you about taxes. Taxation is the act of taking money from the people who earned it by the force or the threat of force. Government is force, pure and simple. There are times when force is necessary, but I find the state using force to control basically every aspect of our lives to be a bad thing.
I have good news - there is a country out there with little to no taxes, who don't inflict this brutal act of force on their citizens to steal their money. Where the individual can shine without anyone holding them down, and the ideals of the community never once impede on the ideals if the single man.
That country is called Somalia and it is a third world hell hole.
Taxes are civilization. You are free to leave civilization if you want.
Your corporate tax example seems absurd to me because it seems to presume that those corporations won't simply leave. When a corporation decides to leave the country or off shore its manufacturing it's obviously not providing more jobs here.
But they didn't leave Denmark. And they didn't leave Germany. And they didn't leave France. And they didn't leave Sweden. And they didn't leave Norway. And they didn't leave a whole lot of countries with higher tax rates then the US.
In fact, it seems the jobs only vanish when we remove the taxes. Just as I stated above, for the reasons I stated above. You say they're going to take their jobs and leave? I ask: what jobs? We've been funneling them money and our jobs have just been leaving faster and faster!
Confiscating more and more money from "the rich" simply incentivizes them to move or keep that money off shore. The very wealthy are very mobile. If you tell billionaires that they have to give up some absurdly large portion of their money The Cayman Islands start looking pretty good. Further more confiscating the 1000 richest Americans entire net worth doesn't even make a dent in the national debt. Taxing the rich is not the panacea you seem to think it is. It won't make the government any less corrupt or incompetent. The government is like an addict. In my experience you don't do an addict much good when you just give them more money. I don't think the government's problem is that it doesn't have enough money. I think the government's problem is that it is hopelessly corrupt and stupid. I also think the fact that we voters keep giving these clowns more power and money calls our wisdom into question.
There is a very simple answer to this: If the rich already had other means of hiding their taxes to ensure they wouldn't pay them, they would already be doing it. A higher tax rate encourages businesses (who don’t want to pay taxes) to keep the profits in the business and reinvest, rather than pull them out as profits and stick them in a tax haven or pull a double irish.
The government's problem is that they're in the pockets of the rich - and we've been swallowing their lies hook, line, and sinker. We the people have given up our rights to ensure the top 5% and the top 1% can have more, more more. It's as if the working class took up pitchforks and lit torches and marched on the wealthy neighborhoods demanding to lower their taxes.
I'll ask again: at what point can we conclude that a policy has failed? We've heard the speeches of low government and low taxation since Reagan, and what do we have to show for it? Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our education falls farther and farther behind. More and more people are unable to afford homes. More and more people are unemployed. And more and more people are sleeping in the streets - in the gutters. Reagan claimed this country was a shining city on a hill, and Cuomo rather aptly proclaimed that, no. This is not a shining city on a hill. This is a tale of two cities.
Watch that video. Now tell me what has changed after supply side economics. Tell me what's different after we time and time again lowered taxes on the rich and gave them more money. Tell me what's changed after we cut program after program.
This policy failed the day it came out. It's time we buried it. Small government. Low taxes. Cut programs. It didn't work.
The abuse that would arise from this system would make the War on Drugs look like a picnic. It is a truly horrifying police state vision.
How do you think that the US tax code is regressive?
Hey, I did say it was incredibly flawed. It's not a REAL idea :p
A regressive tax is one that targets low income rather then high income. A good example of this is sales tax - by and large the poor pay more then the rich on sales tax.
Due to how income is taxed, the wealthy make most of their money on non-taxed or low-taxed forms of income (such as capital gains). Tax cuts and loopholes and credits and etc, etc, etc.
The rich pay less into the system then the poor and middle class do - while reaping more rewards. That's the very definition of regressive.
It seems to me that we currently have a very large government that abuses and exploits its citizens and still subsidizes corporations who abuse and exploit the citizens.
The government is looking pretty beastly to me.
Tell me more about how beastly the government is in your house that was built to spec to be safe, as you drink your clean water, and eat your non-toxic food. Tell me more about how beastly the government is in your house with government mandated electricity. When you go to work (assuming you have a job), let me know how beastly the government is on the government built roads in your safety mandated car. Then when you come home and give your kids a toy, tell them how evil the government, that regulates that toy to ensure it isn't filled with lead, is.
Because that is what civilization looks like. That is what taxes looks like.
Without taxes you have no police, no firemen, no ambulances, no hospitals. You have no schools, no institutes, no colleges. You have no roads, no military, no clean water, no safe food, no electricity. A country without taxes is not a first world country.
I disagree with you about taxes. Taxation is the act of taking money from the people who earned it by the force or the threat of force. Government is force, pure and simple. There are times when force is necessary, but I find the state using force to control basically every aspect of our lives to be a bad thing.I have good news - there is a country out there with little to no taxes, who don't inflict this brutal act of force on their citizens to steal their money. Where the individual can shine without anyone holding them down, and the ideals of the community never once impede on the ideals if the single man.
That country is called Somalia and it is a third world hell hole.
Taxes are civilization. You are free to leave civilization if you want.
Somalia has taxes in various forms so your argument is deeply flawed by not being factual.
The argument that failure to flee a state is consent is awfully weak. The inverse would seem to be if you want to live in a socialist utopia you are free to leave.
I find the key distinction between our arguments is that you want to use state force to impose your vision. I want to leave people alone unless they initiate violence.
I find the argument that if I don't like it I can leave to be flatly lame.
Are you seriously trying to make the argument that European socialist democracies aren't loosing jobs?
The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes.
This is what you consider regressive taxation. Obviously we disagree.
Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014
I find your argument that the companies you say only care about profits will forgo those profits to avoid taxes. Your argument doesn't seem very internally consistent.
I would also counter that we have been doing it you way and its an epic failure. We have huge government, high taxation, and massive expansion in programs.
The federal government alone leeches almost 25% of GDP and we're still 14 trillion in debt, and the programs aren't working well. Your answer seems to be to shift some resources, but to make the state more powerful and give them even more money.
I also have difficulty with your reasoning that letting someone keep some of the money they have earned is a "giveaway".
BTW, if you think the federal government taking a quarter of GDP on top of state and local government is small what's your idea of big government?
I just can't place my trust in government bureaucracy like you do. You think the government is the solution and I think the government is the problem. Like other uses of force I think the best thing that can be said about the government is that it is a necessary evil. You seem to think every advance of civilization is due to government.
It seems to me that we currently have a very large government that abuses and exploits its citizens and still subsidizes corporations who abuse and exploit the citizens.
The government is looking pretty beastly to me.
Tell me more about how beastly the government is in your house that was built to spec to be safe, as you drink your clean water, and eat your non-toxic food. Tell me more about how beastly the government is in your house with government mandated electricity. When you go to work (assuming you have a job), let me know how beastly the government is on the government built roads in your safety mandated car. Then when you come home and give your kids a toy, tell them how evil the government, that regulates that toy to ensure it isn't filled with lead, is.
Because that is what civilization looks like. That is what taxes looks like.
Without taxes you have no police, no firemen, no ambulances, no hospitals. You have no schools, no institutes, no colleges. You have no roads, no military, no clean water, no safe food, no electricity. A country without taxes is not a first world country.
I find your faith in government remarkable, but I don't share it.
My home was built when there were almost no safety regulations for housing, but here it stands over half a century later. Some people actually care about doing a good job even without a government thug putting a gun to the back of their head. Municipal water is contaminated more often than you think. Our food isn't exactly safe in spite of massive amounts of government regulation. My government built roads suck in spite of the absurd amount of taxes I pay. Government regulations have made my car less safe. Government doesn't mandate or provide electricity or sewer in all areas yet people find ways to live just fine anyway. The government has failed to keep toys safe, but I'm curious do you think most parents would give their kids toys they though were unsafe?
You seem absolutely convinced that nothing of value can take place without state control. I don't agree. The government doesn't get credit for every hospital and ambulance and every safe and responsible choice that everyone makes every day.
BTW, the police and fire departments have zero legal responsibility to protect you or your property, but you almost never have a choice about paying them.
|
Tell me more about how beastly the government is in your house that was built to spec to be safe, as you drink your clean water, and eat your non-toxic food. Tell me more about how beastly the government is in your house with government mandated electricity. When you go to work (assuming you have a job), let me know how beastly the government is on the government built roads in your safety mandated car. Then when you come home and give your kids a toy, tell them how evil the government, that regulates that toy to ensure it isn't filled with lead, is.
Because that is what civilization looks like. That is what taxes looks like.
Without taxes you have no police, no firemen, no ambulances, no hospitals. You have no schools, no institutes, no colleges. You have no roads, no military, no clean water, no safe food, no electricity. A country without taxes is not a first world country.
Tell me how beastly it is that many cannot build a house because the regulations and fees to make that "safe" house make it far too expensive? If we did not rely so heavily on big daddy gov. more americans would drink from cleaner wells and buy more local grown meats and produce instead of the lab created "foods" that pay big bucks for lobbyists that pay politicians to make sure their product stays cheaper. And lead toys? you really think it is our gov keeping them out? Economics would, sick kids are bad for business. Most of what you list off their existed without government control or funding for decades in america. the only thing in that whole list that has always sucked up the peoples money is the military. And ALL but the military should be for the states to deal with not the federal creature.
Bitter you type far faster than me, you got out 2 posts (one similar in sentiment to mine) in the time it took me tap out my little rant
LOL! I'm a pretty weak typist, but the topic animates me. :)
Most, Andrew. Never all. The history behind many of the regulations you decry is quite ugly, and points out the simple truth that economics only dictates safety when one can afford it.
Not to bring a foreign country into the topic, bt, but can you cite anything on somalian tax code?
Not to bring a foreign country into the topic, bt, but can you cite anything on somalian tax code?
"Direct taxes are imposed on income and profits, when officials can collect them. In 1986, tax rates on wages and salaries ranged from 0% to 18.9%. Income from trade and the professions was taxed at rates of up to 35%. Indirect taxes are imposed on imports, exports, mortgages, vehicle registration, sugar, alcohol, and a number of other goods and services. In 2003, Somolia's sales tax rate was 10%."
Not to bring a foreign country into the topic, bt, but can you cite anything on somalian tax code?"Direct taxes are imposed on income and profits, when officials can collect them. In 1986, tax rates on wages and salaries ranged from 0% to 18.9%. Income from trade and the professions was taxed at rates of up to 35%. Indirect taxes are imposed on imports, exports, mortgages, vehicle registration, sugar, alcohol, and a number of other goods and services. In 2003, Somolia's sales tax rate was 10%."
I would state that this is the most important issue here. The inability to collect taxes regularly leads to the problems- in fact, I dare say the reality- that Cirno brings up.
I would state that this is the most important issue here. The inability to collect taxes regularly leads to the problems- in fact, I dare say the reality- that Cirno brings up.Not to bring a foreign country into the topic, bt, but can you cite anything on somalian tax code?"Direct taxes are imposed on income and profits, when officials can collect them. In 1986, tax rates on wages and salaries ranged from 0% to 18.9%. Income from trade and the professions was taxed at rates of up to 35%. Indirect taxes are imposed on imports, exports, mortgages, vehicle registration, sugar, alcohol, and a number of other goods and services. In 2003, Somolia's sales tax rate was 10%."
I would have to point out that there are plenty of third world dictatorships and hell holes that have lots of taxes. I would also point out that all nations have black markets that avoid taxes. None of this makes taxes equal civilization. Somalia is an interesting case study for a kind of anarchism or stateless society, but arguing for balancing the budget through smaller government isn't quite the same as saying we should be Somalia.
Sorry to separate my response (phone is acting stupid), but while i agree you make some good points, the thrust of my own argument is that it is not necessarily the tax that equals the civilization level to which we have become accustomed, but the government's ability to collect said taxes and otherwise enforce laws that ensures it.
Sorry to separate my response (phone is acting stupid), but while i agree you make some good points, the thrust of my own argument is that it is not necessarily the tax that equals the civilization level to which we have become accustomed, but the government's ability to collect said taxes and otherwise enforce laws that ensures it.
I still counter that there are plenty of nations have a great deal of centralized control in terms of power, taxation, regulation etc that are bad places. Conversely there are also nations that have high taxes, lots of regulation, and a high degree of centralized economic planning that lots of people would consider good places to live. The European socialist democracies come to mind. I don't accept the argument that centralized power equates to civilization and social good.
Part of the problem is the seen versus the unseen, and the idea that if the government had not done something, that thing could never have been done.
Take for example parts of rural America. One county in Montana is the size of New Hampshire. At any given time there are about half a dozen deputies on duty for the entire county, but they seem to do just fine. I have lived just fine in areas without municipal gas, electric, water and sewer. We bought propane from a private company; we got electricity from a co-op; we had our own well and septic systems. We had no municipal Fire Service so I helped out with the volunteer fire department. VFD's commonly service large areas much more cost effectively than the better trained and equipped professional urban fire departments.
All these things I just cited are not untouched by government, but they are far far more decentralized than similar things in more urban settings.
Americans have become more and more accustomed to the government as a major service provider for generations in part because we have become a much more urban society demographically. I read somewhere that more than half of Americans now live in urban areas with a population of one million plus. It's common in these areas for some form of government to provide key services like water, sewer, power, gas, trash, mass transit, and, of course, fire protection, roads, and law enforcement. For most of the country this has become the accepted norm that generations have grown up with. It's not always easy to envision the alternatives. I think this contributes to an increasing acceptance of a bit more government control year after year that adds up to a great deal of personal power that is surrendered to the state in the long term.
Bt, not to derail you, but but there's something up with arpagio in az-someone blew the whistle on more than a few of his deputies, one of whom was caught with a good amount of money on his person. Arpagio is investigating himself, but a lot of people think he was in on it, as the amount of money found screams slush fund. Thoughts?
Bt, not to derail you, but but there's something up with arpagio in az-someone blew the whistle on more than a few of his deputies, one of whom was caught with a good amount of money on his person. Arpagio is investigating himself, but a lot of people think he was in on it, as the amount of money found screams slush fund. Thoughts?
He's not my favorite guy, but I don't see this coming back on him yet.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio says three officers arrested for drug and human trafficking
Three Arizona Cops Arrested for Human, Drug Smuggling
Sheriff's deputy, 2 others arrested in Arizona human trafficking bust
He may be dirty too, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence to that effect.
The whole war on drugs just keeps piling up the problems though.
The Secret PATRIOT Act and the End of Limited Government in America
The first one is from Forbes and the second one is from Slate. It's interesting what opposite sides can agree on.
Top Democrat Channels Cheney, Blasts Patriot Act Foes as Osama Pals
i dunno. Something strikes me as a bit off in this article.
Yeah, both parties have used "they're-ripping-up-your-civil-rights" as a stick against their opponents, but, fundamentally, both Republicans and Democrats enjoy ruling the world and spying on you.
This goes back at least as far as Clinton's Omnibus Effective Kill-You-Dead bills and probably that's just the tip of the iceberg.
They're watching you. Right now.
Yeah, both parties have used "they're-ripping-up-your-civil-rights" as a stick against their opponents, but, fundamentally, both Republicans and Democrats enjoy ruling the world and spying on you.
This goes back at least as far as Clinton's Omnibus Effective Kill-You-Dead bills and probably that's just the tip of the iceberg.
They're watching you. Right now.
"It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security."-RP'05
Cops in Mexico 'force young woman to strip for her release'
Borderline NSFW
Cops in Mexico 'force young woman to strip for her release'
Borderline NSFW
disgusting. They should be fired.
My main issue here is that this brings up the old caveat of "its good science when I do it ". If he is so concerned, i would prefer he use private funding for the type of science he wants to do and see as opposed to a bit of a rant that comes our as being upset that public funds were used on a laundry folding robot that doesn't have his name on it.
I thought it was going to be about shrimp!
Now I'm hungry.
My main issue here is that this brings up the old caveat of "its good science when I do it ". If he is so concerned, i would prefer he use private funding for the type of science he wants to do and see as opposed to a bit of a rant that comes our as being upset that public funds were used on a laundry folding robot that doesn't have his name on it.
I find it interesting that antarctic jello wrestling is a good use of tax dollars. It's not like we're $14,000,000,000,000 in debt. Oh wait we are. What's the saying in DC? "A billion here, fifty billion there pretty soon you're talking about real money.";)
I find it interesting that antarctic jello wrestling is a good use of tax dollars. It's not like we're $14,000,000,000,000 in debt. Oh wait we are. What's the saying in DC? "A billion here, fifty billion there pretty soon you're talking about real money.";)My main issue here is that this brings up the old caveat of "its good science when I do it ". If he is so concerned, i would prefer he use private funding for the type of science he wants to do and see as opposed to a bit of a rant that comes our as being upset that public funds were used on a laundry folding robot that doesn't have his name on it.
i would like to see how much money was spent and what came our of the study. Again, this guy comes across as unusually bitter to me.
Drug SWAT Team That Gunned Down Ex-Marine Found No Drugs
not surprising.
Of course He didn't do anything wrong -- except publically state he was willing to violate the fourth amendment to preemptively arrest possible future criminals.
.....and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it. This is disgusting.
Of course He didn't do anything wrong -- except publically state he was willing to violate the fourth amendment to preemptively arrest possible future criminals.
I despise the idea of prosecutorial immunity.
Exactly.
i would like to see how much money was spent and what came our of the study. Again, this guy comes across as unusually bitter to me.I find it interesting that antarctic jello wrestling is a good use of tax dollars. It's not like we're $14,000,000,000,000 in debt. Oh wait we are. What's the saying in DC? "A billion here, fifty billion there pretty soon you're talking about real money.";)My main issue here is that this brings up the old caveat of "its good science when I do it ". If he is so concerned, i would prefer he use private funding for the type of science he wants to do and see as opposed to a bit of a rant that comes our as being upset that public funds were used on a laundry folding robot that doesn't have his name on it.
Here's the PDF of the report.
Of course He didn't do anything wrong -- except publically state he was willing to violate the fourth amendment to preemptively arrest possible future criminals.I despise the idea of prosecutorial immunity.
"Solicitor General Katyal and the attorney for the prosecutors in Powattattamie both made the absurd argument that the actual injury in Powattattamie occurred when the defendants were wrongly convicted and jailed, not when the evidence against them was manufactured. Therefore, because the prosecutors were acting in their role as triers of the case when the injury occurred, they should be immune to lawsuit, even though they were acting as investigators when they conjured up the perjured testimony in the first place. Had they passed the evidence off to another prosecutor for trial, they could still be sued. This led Justice Anthony Kennedy to ask, "so the law is the more deeply you're involved in the wrong, the more likely you are to be immune? That's a strange proposition." "
What's really funny is when they then argue the police should be immune since the actual injury happens when wrongly convicted therefore the police did nothing wrong too and shouldn't be prosecuted.
I would argue that injury happens when they start investigating you -- after all that causes issues with your public image among other things (regardless of the fact you are innocent until proven guilty).
That's in addition to the jail time (when you are still innocent by law) the price of bond, a lawyer, lost work time, etc.
What's really funny is when they then argue the police should be immune since the actual injury happens when wrongly convicted therefore the police did nothing wrong too and shouldn't be prosecuted.
I would argue that injury happens when they start investigating you -- after all that causes issues with your public image among other things (regardless of the fact you are innocent until proven guilty).
That's in addition to the jail time (when you are still innocent by law) the price of bond, a lawyer, lost work time, etc.
Worse still varying levels of immunity cover all kinds of government bureaucrats beyond law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges. Many social workers and regulators are also covered so that even if they flagrantly abuse their power they can't be sued or prosecuted. It's stunning how little accountability there really is at all levels of government.
It's only a matter of time before some elected cretin does it.NY Rep. Lee resigns after shirtless photo surfaces
D-bag!
Hee hee! Doesn't he know you're supposed to put pictures of your junk on Craigslist.
Stupid Republicans.
OK it was twitter not Craigslist.
Congressman Wants Weiner Probe
I couldn't pass up that headline.