network_person_zippy

I'm seeing a trend in your posts - that of a young, fresh blooded person with radical ideas but zero depth of knowledge or wisdom in your propositions.

Regarding our geopolitics from the 1940's through to today;

Please qualify in what ways we are causing both positive and negative impact?

Are you saying that the US and its security apparatus, despite allowing a freedom of trade and navigation for 70+ years, is overwhelmingly a negative?

Are you aware of the significant investments made across the world in both a humanitarian and functional infrastructure/business/etc. level from the US and allies, as a result of our security apparatus and the above goals and protections?

Please take time to answer - and be specific, not a "The details don't matter, we will figure it out" nonsense I've seen you reply with.

Thanks!

The more important question: What is your participation and voting record in elections up to this point?

Yeah, but back to the main point - can you answer this both bluntly and honestly?

Not really, you can quickly perform an analysis on users to find out if that's the current assumption, though.

In fact, /u/SocialistHiker, I'm a left-leaning progressivist myself.

It's just... Your arguments and proposals are just garbage (both in practically and in your lack of strategic or tactical elements, to even possibly deliver anything) and your responses and their lackluster in their specifics, nuance, and context, particularly regarding economic and geopolitical/international topics, is quite clear for all to read and see.

Also, you're avoiding telling people the specifics of your voting record, which is weird, and flat out avoiding disclosing what elections you have even participated in...

Quoted from not one, but two early responses:

The more important question: What is your participation and voting record in elections up to this point?

No answer, seems straight forward... Why is that?

Using progressive taxes to fund these things is mythical; Top income earners at or above $250,000 USD per year tend to earn far, far, FAR less in their compensation from base salary and far more in bonuses, stock options / restricted stocks for vesting and % stakes in their businesses, all of which are taxed at a significantly lower rate long and short term than income tax.

That's as it is - right now.

So taxing "70% at 1-10million" is ludicrous. Anyone earning near that is not making it in regular income. The # of people earning these levels of total compensation reduces quickly, its an exponential curve down in # of people per income level from 250k and up to 10million and up.

How will you address this without hurting the equities and other financial markets, or without hurting the overall value and returns on peoples investments?

EDIT:

Folks, you can downvote me, but please try to instead consider engaging me directly with evidence and a feasible counter-argument instead.

For example, Amazon Tech workers are often a Seattle left-wing scapegoat for "Rich Bad" sentiments, but within that specific company - there is a salary hard cap at $165,000 USD lat I have checked (may have moved to 170-175k), where the remainder of compensation is heavily stock-based.

The average total compensation for Senior, Lead, Principal, Director, etc. folks at a company like that ranges from $250k through $750k - to the point, although anecdotal its highly relevant in observing the trends and comp structures of highly paid individuals, the regular income is never surpassing the 250k and above mark that most progressive tax advocates are looking to "close the gap with".

You're being disingenuous here, and I think you realize what I'm doing - but it's for a reason.

It's easy to point to an ultra-specific use case and draw one extreme to another, its a great shock value. Such wow.

However, you're clever, we both know this is a serious, multi-layered answer. I asked can you provide both positive and negative, real examples, of:

Please qualify in what ways we are causing both positive and negative impact?

You are vying to be a US rep, you should have a level of knowledge about this beyond a quick headline point or a sensational "Gotcha". I can give you one, no, TWO for free;

The US and its Allies intervened in Ex-Yugoslavia, and helped save ethnic groups of people (more than just Kosovars) from extermination.

The US and its Allies regularly intervene and conduct freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea, ensuring free access for maritime trade entities there. Additionally, we are what allows the world to conduct free and open trade across the oceans.

So,

My sense is, it's going to degrade your stancing by acknowledging this, but also it will be clearly painful in how unprepared you are to understand and communicate out the required depth and nuance of geopolitical affairs of the US and how we have been interfacing and, yes, overwhelmingly benefiting the world for over 70 years.

But that's your job as a US rep, to represent us both Domestically and in how we conduct ourselves... Abroad.

WA is a globalized, international state. We are a world class Technology hub. We have so much trade and so many enterprises around global and domestic trade here its insane. If this was middle America, OK, sure, have a pass on this - focus on the local issues.

But we're a different league economically and we need to embrace that responsibly.

Care to comment? You are 100% welcome to elaborate your points, or perhaps actually try to answer my questions rather than tip toeing around it.

​