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.
ObjectivityIncarnate
- 0 Posts
- 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
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.
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- You clearly have no historical knowledge of the above, nor of why they failed and were soon repealed by every nation that implemented it, or neutered completely out of their ostensible aim to target the ultra-wealthy, and becoming just another tax burden for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Do you really think all those countries that implemented and then later repealed their wealth taxes, got rid of them because they were effective?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.
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.
show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions
You can’t prove a negative, screwball. It’s literally impossible to prove “never took advantage of anyone” about anyone, billionaire or not.
Not that you’re almost certainly using an overbroad definition of ‘take advantage’, on top of it.
I’m down to change my view.
No, you aren’t. People who are don’t play these kinds of semantic games.
I just don’t see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.
Which of course is a stupid comparison indicative of economic ignorance, because wealth does not grow linearly for anyone who doesn’t stuff their money under a mattress.
1 in 4 households earning over $100,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck–not because they can’t make ends meet, but because their money management sucks. A high income has very little relationship with responsible borrowing, despite what many would assume.
imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.
That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.
You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt.
No I’m not. Those people are unknown quantities, and so also suffer if credit scores go away, because bad borrowers are worse than first-time borrowers, so without credit scores, first-timers will be treated worse.
And how exactly is guessing your credit worthiness based on those factors a better system than literally keeping track of what happened each previous time money was lent to you, when it comes to making a decision on lending money to you?
This is like arguing it’s a better idea to select NBA players by their height, than by their performance in high school and college basketball games.
You’re sexist scum.