ObjectivityIncarnate

If the weather is too shitty to bike, why would I want to put a delivery driver in those conditions.

I mean, I really don’t want to bike in the rain, but that’s no big deal for someone in a car, lol.

The fact that even with the fees charged to the restaurant and to the customer, the majority of these apps still aren’t even profitable, lol.

Yes. Those people consider things like this part of the “cost of living”, not the luxury that it is.

On average, people have more of an issue overspending than they do underearning. That’s why even among people making six figures, 1 in 4 of them live “paycheck to paycheck”, which people assume to mean ‘barely make enough to make ends meet’, but what more commonly means ‘deliberately chooses not to save/spends every dollar earned’.

Okay, now it’s $74. Now what?

This seems reasonable, honestly.

Usenet may be old, but it’s come a long way. Just about all scene content is there, and I max out my gigabit connection during the download from start to finish every time, without having to care about the quantity/quality of seeders, or needing to seed anything myself after downloading.

deleted by creator

No, the explanation that involves conspiracy is not the simpler explanation.

All of your points involved putting words in my mouth, and evading the simple facts:

• It’s been tried myriad times already, and has failed not only to increase tax revenue from the wealthiest, but also failed to increase the overall amount of tax revenue, period
• You clearly have no historical knowledge of the above, nor of why they failed and were soon repealed by every nation that implemented it, or neutered completely out of their ostensible aim to target the ultra-wealthy, and becoming just another tax burden for the middle class
• The above makes it extra clear that the ‘but it’ll work when we do it’ is a completely empty claim. If you can’t even articulate why it failed all those times before, how can you hope for a more successful attempt?

All you’ve done here is straw man me and accuse me of being condescending, while desperately evading the above.

Do you really think all those countries that implemented and then later repealed their wealth taxes, got rid of them because they were effective? Use your brain.

You aren’t the god of econ 101

Yeah, it doesn’t take a god to understand that something we already know doesn’t work shouldn’t be attempted again.

There is a reason that the could of countries that still have wealth taxes (read: didn’t repeal them outright) changed them so that they’re no longer aimed at the wealthiest, and they’ve become just another tax primarily shouldered by the middle class, defeating the whole stated purpose of getting more tax revenue out of the ultra-wealthy.

a false point, that being a wealth tax doesn’t help just because it can be done poorly.

You say this as if what’s being proposed in the US is materially different from the previously-failed implementations around the world.

It isn’t. There has been no good answer to the question ‘how do we keep this from being the catastrophic failure it was elsewhere?’ from its proponents. They’re just doing the infamous definition of insanity, just try the exact same thing and expect a better result, because reasons.

He’s not the president.

If I refer to the negative outcome of something already attempted multiple times, while people insist we should try doing the exact same thing in ignorance of those attempts and they outcomes, there is no “feigning” going on; I actually do know more.

And my analogy is directed at the people who have demonstrated their ignorance/naivete by insisting that raising taxes always leads to an increase in tax revenue, even though, again, knowledge of that history makes it clear that not only is that not a given, but that it literally caused the opposite every time previously attempted.

You need to stop feigning competence when you’re insisting we repeat others’ mistakes. Learn some history.

No, they abandon it because the total tax revenue after implementation literally goes down instead of up, lol.

Just because 100 people will buy your product X at $10 and you make $1000, doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to make $2000 if you sell X for $20 instead. That’s basically the same principle–raising taxes doesn’t necessarily lead to an increase in revenue. People react to changes in policy.

This is not speculation, it literally already happened. Stop speaking about this from your assumed expectations and learn the actual history.

No. Leave my IRA and 401k alone.

There is a reason every country that’s tried a wealth tax has abandoned it (or neutered it to the point that it’s primarily the burden of the middle class, completely defeating the ostensibly-stated purpose of getting more money from the wealthiest), learn some world history.

Seems unlikely, considering a request for “doggy style” has literally nothing to do with domestic violence, either literally or in any double meaning way.

Doesn’t make sense to compare a rate of an outcome (without even knowing how often that outcome was sought) with an individual attempt whose outcome is not even known yet.

When Mangione IS actually given the death penalty, this ‘argument’ will actually amount to something. Dumb until then.

The fact that people are so lazy that they keep going for the corporate-sure-to-enshittify options shows how little people actually care about escaping corporate control of their lives.

It’s not that deep.

People want to go where other people are. A tiny minority of them are even aware of the things that are influencing your decisions. Not a single moment is spent thinking about whether X or Y is more ‘corporately controlled’ before deciding to join a new platform.

Lemmy moment.

He exists because his parents had sex. Having sex is stupid now?

This is completely unrealistic.

A UBI of just $10,000 a year, and only to all working age Americans, would still cost several trillion dollars, every year.

Even if you could wave a magic wand and convert the combined net worth of all of the US’s billionaires to cash 1:1, that cash wouldn’t fund even that meager amount of UBI for more than a couple of years.

People are really bad at discussing political topics without getting all riled up

Understatement of the century, lol. And social media’s influence has only exacerbated the overall polarization/radicalization, making civil discussion in that area feel like even more of a pipe dream as time goes on.