Politics: J'accuse! - Page 303

Atticus Grinch · 05-14-2004, 01:34 PM

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the problem of D.C. statehood, but it does occur to me that it is ENTIRELY FUCKED UP that there are at least two, and probably far more, residents of D.C. living in public housing who happen to be rich enough to maintain "residences" elsewhere, and have the money to fly home and vote in every election in their respective "residences" even though they live in D.C. for all but six vacation weeks of the year.

Maybe the solution is to allow other D.C. residents to declare a "residence" in a state of their choosing, the way we allow military personnel to do so. They can be like the lost tribe of Israel or something. They can declare residence in battleground states, and be lobbied by each party to do so.

I'm all about thinking outside the box.

Not Me · 05-14-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The part of California that wants to leave is north of here and Sacramento. They'd be happy to join Oregon, too, but don't hold your breath.

Part of California wants to be resorbed by Mexico. It is the that part that Bustamonte used to belong to. I forget their name.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-14-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

Maybe the solution is to allow other D.C. residents to declare a "residence" in a state of their choosing, the way we allow military personnel to do so. They can be like the lost tribe of Israel or something. They can declare residence in battleground states, and be lobbied by each party to do so.

I'm all about thinking outside the box.

It's an interesting idea. It took me quite some time after moving here to change my residence to DC. I would have preferred not to at all. The real bitch is that you can't get a parking permit without doing so.

Can members of the military declare any state? Or do they have to take the last state they were in, or something like that. At least there's some principle there, as opposed to choosing wyoming, for example.

bilmore · 05-14-2004, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Part of California wants to be resorbed by Mexico. It is the that part that Bustamonte used to belong to. I forget their name.

Juan.

Not Me · 05-14-2004, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the problem of D.C. statehood, but it does occur to me that it is ENTIRELY FUCKED UP that there are at least two, and probably far more, residents of D.C. living in public housing who happen to be rich enough to maintain "residences" elsewhere, and have the money to fly home and vote in every election in their respective "residences" even though they live in D.C. for all but six vacation weeks of the year.

College students going to school in DC, too.

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe the solution is to allow other D.C. residents to declare a "residence" in a state of their choosing, the way we allow military personnel to do so. They can be like the lost tribe of Israel or something. They can declare residence in battleground states, and be lobbied by each party to do so.

I'm all about thinking outside the box.

Then they would be subject to the state's income tax, so my guess is the majority will pass up representation in favor of paying less tax. Except for those exempt from paying tax because they are on welfare, which is probably a huge proportion of DC residents.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-14-2004, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me

Then they would be subject to the state's income tax, so my guess is the majority will pass up representation in favor of paying less tax. Except for those exempt from paying tax because they are on welfare, which is probably a huge proportion of DC residents.

It would be hard to find a state in which income taxes are higher than DC's.

Not Me · 05-14-2004, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Juan.

This is probably a whiff/w-a-t-e-r but it was called El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan.

Not Me · 05-14-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It would be hard to find a state in which income taxes are higher than DC's.

They would still have to pay DC taxes, too. It is like when you work in Manhattan but live in Jersey. Don't you pay income tax in both states or am I incorrect in thinking this?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-14-2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
They would still have to pay DC taxes, too. It is like when you work in Manhattan but live in Jersey. Don't you pay income tax in both states or am I incorrect in thinking this?

You know, it's Atticus's box we're in so I have no idea. I assumed that by being a resident of another state you wouldn't be subject to tax in DC. Va and Md residents are not, even when they work in the District.

New York screws people left and right on taxes, but generally you don't pay more in total than you would pay to the higher taxing state (you get a 1 for 1 credit against state taxes paid to another state in any other state).

Not Me · 05-14-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You know, it's Atticus's box we're in so I have no idea. I assumed that by being a resident of another state you wouldn't be subject to tax in DC. Va and Md residents are not, even when they work in the District.

New York screws people left and right on taxes, but generally you don't pay more in total than you would pay to the higher taxing state (you get a 1 for 1 credit against state taxes paid to another state in any other state).

Sounds reasonable. My guess is that if they didn't do it that way, someone could challenge it as unconstitutional using a dormant commerce clause argument. However, I no longer can even remember what the dormant commerce clause is so I could be wrong.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-14-2004, 02:00 PM

Governor Arnold suggests that the State of California receive 3/4 of all awards of punitive damages.

Atticus Grinch · 05-14-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Governor Arnold suggests that the State of California receive 3/4 of all awards of punitive damages.

Is that 3/4 of the net to client, or 3/4 of the gross? Your answer could mean the difference between AS=Evil Genius or AS=Evil Idiot.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-14-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Governor Arnold suggests that the State of California receive 3/4 of all awards of punitive damages.

I'd go one step further: The state of California should receive all awards of punitive damages, except for a portion held back to pay reasonable attorneys' fees, the remainder to be paid into a trust for some form of victims' compensation.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-14-2004, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'd go one step further: The state of California should receive all awards of punitive damages, except for a portion held back to pay reasonable attorneys' fees, the remainder to be paid into a trust for some form of victims' compensation.

You want to preserve some incentive for the plaintiff's counsel to seek them, and one dollar out of four should do it.

And Arnold's not concerned about victims' compensation. He's got a budget to balance, and this year's gimmicks only take you so far.

I'm not smart enough to understand Atticus's concern, as is so often the case.

Atticus Grinch · 05-14-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'd go one step further: The state of California should receive all awards of punitive damages, except for a portion held back to pay reasonable attorneys' fees, the remainder to be paid into a trust for some form of victims' compensation.

So the 100% of individual plaintiffs who will then instruct their attorneys not to bother seeking a punitive award, and the subsequent loss of the deterrent effect, would just be a bonus for people and businesses committing malice, oppression, and fraud?

Or are you just unconcerned about creating conflicts of interest between attorneys and clients, if they're on the plaintiff side?