What’s the tax that prevents people from valuing your stuff highly? Because that’s what net worth ultimately is: other people’s valuation of what you own.
Don’t hold your breath for any sort of ‘maximum wealth’ legislation to ever be a thing. It’s an absurd idea on its face, and even if you could accomplish something like that, it wouldn’t solve any of the problems you think it’d solve.
you get everyone a baseline income of $75k is by taking it from the billionaires
Actually, no. That’s a hypothetical for a reason; the entire net worth of all billionaires combined (assuming a magic wand could convert the net worth figure into an equivalent amount of cash, literally impossible in reality) wouldn’t get everyone to $75k for even a single year.
Over the long term, there really isn’t. Outside of a government imposing tyranny-tier control over everyone’s wealth, wealth inequality happens naturally, and inevitably, and the gap widens similarly.
What’s more important is making sure that even the poorest among us can have a decent standard of living. After all, if you waved a magic wand and now everyone in the US, for example, was earning $75,000 a year minimum, no one would be in poverty, right? And yet the size of the ‘wealth gap’ between the wealthiest and the $75k ‘minimum earners’ would effectively be identical; the gap between $0 and billions is basically the same as the gap between $75k and billions.
Toppling the wealthiest just because they’re the wealthiest isn’t going to solve any of the actual problems (especially when politicians get bribed for relatively-measly five figure sums, etc.).
Massive understatement—they’re actually the only things that could truly be “solutions” at all in anything approaching long-term.
There will always be people who are the smartest and/or shrewdest and/or most ambitious and/or luckiest, in a population. “Just get rid of the people who currently have the most wealth” is extraordinarily naive.
The crux of “she never won” was to argue that she was not popular. Pointing out that not only did she not win, she gave up while in 6th place before the official voting even started, only serves to magnify the original argument. It’s not a goalpost move.
Is it really goalpost moving for ‘she never won’ to be elaborated on, into ‘she gave up before the voting even began because she was that unpopular’?
Does that really change the comparison between her and someone who came third and second in primaries? The essence of your retort was ‘neither did Reagan but look at him’, but the fact is that ‘they both failed to win primaries’, while technically correct, is definitely not equivalent to saying they were on equal standing. This is basically the exchange that just happened:
Couldn’t help but laugh at the juxtaposition of these soldiers being in full camouflage including face paint, while walking around holding up this giant rainbow-colored obliterator of stealth, lol
Unironic major example of how “[size] dick energy” is a really stupid, and inherently body-shaming, expression in the first place.
The OP says “doesn’t work”, not ‘does work but not enough to satisfy an arbitrary threshold of “working for a living” so it doesn’t count’.
Ronald Reagan came third in the 1968 Republican primary, didn’t run in 1972, and came second in 1976.
Harris bowed out months before the votes were even cast, and was in something like 6th place at the time she quit. How is this at all comparable?
Kamala’s problem was her gender.
Hillary Clinton, same gender as Kamala Harris, won the popular vote in 2016.
Stop deflecting from the real reasons.
Jesus, Nixon was an idiot. Computers don’t get “smarter.”
This is honestly a ridiculous, petty criticism, especially of someone in the 1960s/70s.
Even today, half a century later, it’s not an uncommon colloquialism among the general public to describe advancement in computer technology as them ‘getting smarter’. Have you not noticed the Big Thing in computing now, that everyone is calling “AI”? That stands for “artificial intelligence”. And it’s not accurate today, either. But I wouldn’t say “Jesus, you’re an idiot” to anyone calling it that. Would you?
Being a woman [is the primary reason people didn’t vote for Harris]
Reminder that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Nobody is saying owners do literally no labor
The OP literally says “doesn’t work”. Is “doesn’t work” not equivalent to “no labor”?
It’s just a running joke for greentexts to call them “fake and gay”, which became having to come up with some justification to attach both labels to the story instead of just saying it is. This is completely regardless of what the greentext actually consists of.
The more you have to stretch to make the labels fit, the funnier it is.
when the Trump Administration gives us our tariff refund
Who is expecting this to actually ever happen?
This is an interesting notion I hadn’t considered at all, you may be on to something there.
Missing in the post’s title, but not the article’s title. No ambiguity there:
Republican Mayor Wesley Dingus charged after ‘sniffing underage girl’s underwear’ on camera
I thought that said switch TO Teams, for a moment, lol