ObjectivityIncarnate

It isn’t necessary.

There are so many better ones out there and they’re not filled

Actually civilized countries like China

lol

Assuming you could wave a magic wand and convert their net worth straight into cash 1:1 (you can’t), you couldn’t even do the last thing on that list, much less all the others:

Assuming in the US, using 2023 figures:

• Total combined net worth of all billionaires (remember, you can only “take all their money” one time): $5.2 trillion
• Total annual healthcare cost: $4.9 trillion

Too many people have been deluded into believing that ‘the billionaires’ are capable of easily solving all societal ills if only they gave away their wealth, and aren’t they such assholes for keeping their wealth and not solving them?

Most people are not nearly aware of the actual costs of these things.

Anubis is so lightweight you’ll forget it’s there until you look at your hosting bill.

I don’t know if they realize this is implying it’s onerously expensive, lol.

You said something stupid, and it was identified as such. That’s not being offended.

Though the fact that you had to assume several things about me personally to rationalize the way you behave, as your ego is apparently just too fragile to conceive of the possibility that YTA, says a lot, and makes me wonder if you’re available in IMAX.

What’s your source on that? Your arse?

Good luck finding a single source in any country that has females being on the receiving end of violence more often than males per capita, overall.

I think you’re an incel who hates women and doesn’t care about violence against them.

That’s because you’re enough of a fool to think caring about male suffering is misogynistic. All I did was point out your deliberate blindness to the suffering of half of humanity, by describing the half that is assaulted and killed less, as the half with the ‘epidemic’ of violence against them.

It’s like when the reaction to 11% of journalists killed the year before being women is to say “stop targeting female journalists”. You’re so deeply sexist that the 89% who are male don’t even land on your radar.

Men don’t deserve empathy.

You’re sexist scum.

You know what else is an epidemic? Violence against women and girls

Men and boys are victims of violence at an order of magnitude greater frequency, you just don’t care because you hate males, so only female suffering bothers you.

Misandry isn’t a problem compared to misogyny, and likely wouldn’t exist if there was no misogyny

This is what peak anti-male sexism looks like.

“Who cares?” Yeah, not your pathetic, empathy-free ass, you’ve made that abundantly clear.

For shame.

need a large gender affirming car

???

This is a projection of your own brainrot sexism, nothing more.

Don’t try to make it sound like you ever mocked a woman for having a large car, either, you’re not fooling anyone with “people”, lol.

Yeah, pretty massive fundamental difference, lol.

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

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.

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.