politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
My friend, when I was 22 I didn't make enough to pay taxes. You're getting downvoted because you're defensive, aggro, and misunderstanding the premise.
Very few people on Lemmy believe you're actually stupid because you're young. Often times just uninformed and, per your example, impulsive. "Young=naive" tends to be a regressive position. I think you'll find Lemmy is typically a progressive website. Most of us left reddit over ideological/enshitification differences not because we were too radically right. .ml is among the exceptions.
Anyway the premise isn't 22 year olds are too dumb to worry about taxes.
Instead the premise is that you're too poor to worry about taxes. That's not to say you can't or shouldn't but you likely won't have anything worth taxing at that age. If you do have things worth taxing that young you either have inherited well, I'm sorry for your loss, or you are offspring of the 1%-0.0001% and were born with a silver spoon. Otherwise you're the lowest on the totem pole and it's been proven throughout the millennials growing up that you're not going to get ahead if the status quo remains as it is. In theory you should be looking for the most radical change because you'll see the greatest benefit over your lifetime.
Anyway my friend, chill, touch grass and have a lovely day.
And when it comes time to worry about taxes worth less about how much you're paying and instead what you're getting out of it. Paying taxes is pretty sweet when you get stuff in return like healthcare, schools, parks, places to get out and do things that don't cost money, transit investment, bridges that don't fall down. Taxes only such when you can't see the impact it has in your life...like this moment in history right now where the rich own the government and want more money from us to improve their lives.
I think this is a more nuanced take on the situation. I would agree that folks who are directly impacted by an issue are more likely to be impacted by it. Original comment seemed too absolutist too me.
I think there are 22yo who can be impacted by the issue of taxes while being poor (Though they may end up on the other side of the argument). For example, issues of food stamps and medicare-for-all affect all ages. A 22yo might have a strong opinion in favor of taxation for these purposes. A conservative making an ad hominem argument on the basis of age in this case (e.g., that they are simply being manipulated by the radical left) would be clearly incorrect.
I also think, as more of a moral argument, you shouldn't need to be directly impacted by something in order to support/oppose it. I am not on food stamps but I absolutely think we should have them (or perhaps "upgrade" it to UBI to avoid nonsense on what poor people are allowed to buy).
In any case, dismissing someone as simply being manipulated is not a good approach in general. It could be a good approach when we are specifically talking about the person overselling on confirmation bias from ChatGPT, but it is a poor way to change minds as a general tactic.
Is there any particular language I should adjust to avoid being "aggro"? I did say that I hated their argument. And I did call them hostile after their last sarcastic response to me trying to extend an olive branch.
Is that going too far? "Touch grass" is about the same level, I would think, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.