Doesn't "correct this behavior" very directly imply that the current behavior (in this case, taking your full lunch break) is incorrect and therefore in need of correction, though?
It's one thing to suggest something, but calling it a "correction" changes things, I'd think.
Taxes in the US are overwhelmingly used for the military
"Overwhelmingly" is a bit of a ridiculous way to describe 13% of the budget, don't you think?
and to enrich rich fucks
Cite a figure for this nebulous category, if you can.
not to help the poor.
Actually, welfare spending is barely less than military spending, at 11.8% of the budget.
By letting someone sit on them to “allow them to appreciate” is letting someone doing nothing accumulate the wealth gains of society that we all work for.
The same can be said of anyone who owns a house. There is nothing wrong with a thing you already own becoming more valuable to others.
Because those assets appreciate faster than inflation, they create inflation pressure as more asseted people have income to burn that doesn’t reflect actual economic movement. Decreasing the value of money that other people need to use to buy things to live.
This is a very confused couple of statements; most egregiously, you're conflating asset price inflation with consumer price inflation, and only the latter has a direct effect on the working class.
The ultra-wealthy have a low 'marginal propensity to consume'. If Jeff Bezos gains $10 billion on paper, he does not spend $10B on consumption goods; most gains remain invested. Appreciation alone does not automatically translate into CPI inflation, because unrealized gains are not income.
No one lives in a vacuum and letting people hoard assets has a negative impact on everyone else.
It's objectively nonsensical to refer to the notion of purchasing something, and its market value increasing while you merely continue to own it, as "hoarding". Not to mention, again, that net worth is a valuation, a price tag. It is not money. Stop acting like when the price of a stock goes up, that amount of cash money is magically vacuumed out of the wallets of the working class.
If everyone became a laborer with proper compensation, society would thrive.
People want to be able to own things (aka assets), though.
If everyone became an asset hoarder
Ownership isn't hoarding.
society would break apart as there would be no one to operate the machinery of society.
Except this literally cannot ever happen because the demand created by the market is the whole reason those assets appreciate in value in the first place. It's a self-correcting issue: if too many people try to just 'own assets', the demand will drop, and said assets' value will start depreciating, incentivizing those people back in the other direction, to laboring.
...increasing the price of those assets, devaluing other ways of earning money
Asset appreciation is not income, stop equivocating the two.
reducing wealth inequality pushes us towards the first.
Not necessarily; it's entirely possible for everyone to have identical wealth, and also all be poor. In fact, that was the default state of humanity for the vast majority of its history.
If you have wealth anywhere over say, $50 million, you hire an accountant to assess your business’s value.
'Oh, our accountant says the valuation is just under the threshold for the new tax, what a coincidence!'
It is trivially easy to shift assets around in such a way that having a net worth threshold for a given tax is basically a guarantee that no one will pay it. Many countries have tried this already, and failed. Why repeat their mistakes, instead of learning from them?
We need to remember that people, and especially the ultra-wealthy, are not inert blocks of wood that don't react to policy changes like these.
I’m calling bullshit on this. There are all sorts of taxes that fall heavily or solely on the wealthy.
Firstly, I said "only the wealthiest", so don't already start nudging those goalposts by "calling bullshit" and immediately tweaking it to "heavily or solely". Secondly, if there are so many, name three.
The real value in a wealth tax is breaking up the money from individuals, the revenue is just a bonus.
And the mask comes off, revealing the true motivation. You'd happily waste the taxpayer money that is the poor's lifeline in many cases, reducing overall tax revenue, because hurting the rich matters more to you than helping the poor.
money that’s now actually moving through the economy zombie wealth sitting in some rich fuck’s paws, doing nothing but contribute to inflation.
Switzerland's wealth taxes, depending on area (there is no country-wide wealth tax) starts at the equivalent of ~$100,000 on average, putting it very squarely in the
‘dialed down’ to be just another ‘mundane’ tax that falls primarily into the lap of the middle class.
category I mentioned before. That is absolutely not a tax aimed exclusively at the ultra-wealthy.
This is basically urban legend at this point; "buy borrow die" is a tiny piece of the ultra-wealthy's financial strategy, at least when it comes to the "borrow" part, which is what everyone's focused on:
In reality, the ultra wealthy do not borrow against a large fraction of their unsold gains. On average from 2004 to 2022, the top 1% of wealth-holders only borrowed 1-2% of their annual economic income.
Borrowing while holding unrealized gains is, in fact, more of a middle-class activity than an ultra-wealthy one: Americans in the 50-90th percentiles borrowed 42% of their unrealized gains in 2022, compared to just 4% for the top 1% of wealth-holders.
The primary tax avoidance strategy for the top 1% is not to borrow, but simply not to sell appreciated assets.
Not likely. First of all, the net worth numbers you see for these ultra-wealthy people are all educated guesses. To actually legally impose anything based on total net worth, you need to actually audit net worth and get a real figure. The resources it would take to do this are very unlikely to yield more tax revenue than they cost, especially because there is so much one can possess whose value is pretty much completely arbitrary (the high-end artwork, etc.).
It's actually all-but-certain it'd be a net loss of tax revenue. There is a reason that every time such a policy targeting only the wealthiest is put into place (it's been tried numerous times over the years in a bunch of European countries), it's gotten rid of soon thereafter, or 'dialed down' to be just another 'mundane' tax that falls primarily into the lap of the middle class.
No one is actually worshiping him, it's just a meme, relax.
Also this image is probably older than his being a billionaire, it has to do with Steam, not his net worth.
Brainstorming: maybe make it mandatory only when a review is about performance of the game, because that's when it's relevant. Maybe a checkbox as you're writing a negative review that's something like 'what aspect(s) of the game don't you like', and if 'performance' is checked, a little addendum that says 'your specs will be added to the review to give context'. In that case, people who want to look through reviews would also be able to filter by those same 'types' of reviews, or see what percentage of negative reviews are due to performance, or other things. Could be a good addition overall.
But generally, if someone wants to write a bad review because of shitty controls, or plot, or the game being too short for its price, etc., there's no need to have specs attached to that kind of review.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all the replies are misunderstanding you as saying 'who has so much RAM', when you're actually referring to 30 being a bizarre total number of GB of RAM to have.
I can't even think of a combo of (certainly-mismatched) sticks of RAM that'd get you to 30 even. 8-8-8-6?
few
Did you know there are well over 1,000 billionaires in the US? Have even 10 of them been implicated in the files, that you can name?
I'd say it's more likely that a significant majority of them aren't.
What an idiotic article (and website in general, looks Buzzfeed-tier). From its linked source:
Negative cerebrovascular effects can be expected by compressing jugular veins and carotids
No shit.
by a necktie.
Nobody is wearing a tie that tightly, and even if it is deliberately made that tight when you put it on, it's not like a noose, it'll loosen on its own almost immediately as you start moving around. There are no springs in a tie maintaining the tension.
Being deceived by the party into thinking a certain thing (tariffs) would have a different effect than it would actually have, in fact disqualifies the situation from LAMF.
Think about the 'template'. There is zero ambiguity/deception about "eating faces", the person voting for the "leopards eating faces party" expects face eating, and that is exactly what happens. What they don't expect is for the eating to happen to them, too. And a major element of LAMF is that the assumption that the face-eating will happen to others and not them is something that the voter fabricates from whole cloth, all on their own. The "leopards eating faces party" doesn't ever say or do a thing to imply they're only targeting certain faces.
Firstly, rule #3, this isn't a "high-quality source". It's a blog that's apparently been caught pretending to be The Daily Wire on Reddit by posting under an account named "dailywiire" (example). The first link in the article, in the text "reporting total liabilities", you'd expect to link to a primary source about the bankruptcy, but it just links to a completely unrelated other article on the same website.
Dug a bit more, and oh look, it's completely ripped off of an article from last October from a completely different source.
Secondly, this isn't even LAMF, as the primary thing negatively affecting him here is tariffs, and there's no evidence he was ever in favor of them. In fact, the article implies the literal opposite:
In a 2020 BRAIN article, Lupton-Smith explained that EBC could not compete on price with Asian-made e-bikes, so he aimed to create customizable bikes with as much U.S.-made content as possible to reduce tariff exposure.
For LAMF, the party you voted for must actually do the thing you explicitly supported them promising to do, with the crux being that you incorrectly expected/assumed the thing to be done to others and not you. If, for example, you voted for Trump because of his promises to bring down prices of groceries, and then he wins and grocery prices instead go up, and you're complaining about those prices going up, that's not LAMF, at all.
It's also important to keep in mind that a fallacious argument leading to a conclusion does not actually disprove the conclusion; identifying the fallacy just means that if the conclusion is correct, that argument is not the path to it. And if the fallacious argument is the only path to conclusion X, then there is simply no basis for presuming X to be correct at all.
red herring: might as well call it by its social media names: “ackshyually”, “whataboutism”, etc.
Well, "ackshyually" is actually (:P) rooted in mocking people who pedantically and pointlessly correct others, to the point of being more irritating than informative. The 'Jimmy Neutron salt' meme shows a pretty solid example of that kind of behavior:
Red herrings as a type of fallacy, on the other hand are about using something to support an argument that doesn't actually have anything to do with it. The Wikipedia page itself gives a solid example of this:
For example, "I think we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend you support this because we are in a budget crisis, and we do not want our salaries affected." The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic.
You're welcome!
Why miss the opportunity to say “bigly,”
Because the goal isn't to sound stupid?
Dug a bit, and apparently this seat has literally never been held by a Republican; this is quite the misleading headline.
Her name is "Chasity", by the way, not "Chastity".
Permanently Deleted
wanting to sound like an adult when making a genuine criticism is bootlicking
???
This is like saying that someone wanting to end all poverty is ignoring and discriminating against the single poorest person.
Stop acting like these things are zero-sum. It takes no extra effort to speak out against all instances of an injustice, compared to doing so only for certain instances of that injustice.