ObjectivityIncarnate

Let them know that they changed the term to “climate change” so that stupid people would understand that the Earth getting hotter on average will make some places colder, because ice that used to be staying put, will now melt into water, which will flow into places where there wasn’t water before.

That’s about as dumbed down an explanation as is possible, I think, lol.

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• You clearly have no historical knowledge of the above, nor of why they failed and were soon repealed by every nation that implemented it, or neutered completely out of their ostensible aim to target the ultra-wealthy, and becoming just another tax burden for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Do you really think all those countries that implemented and then later repealed their wealth taxes, got rid of them because they were effective?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.

Atheism isn’t a religion, likewise asexuality is not a sexual orientation, but the lack of one, I say.

What you are describing is essentially the roguelike/lite genre, lol. Search up some of that, see if anything looks fun.

Is the point meant to be that women don’t build off of their previous work as much as men? lol

Powerful

This “science meme” needs more science and less meme, imo, lol

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.

Only people who are bad credit risks ever come up with this take, lmao.

The sole function of credit scores is to benefit people who are reliably ‘good for it’ when they borrow money. Without them, everyone is treated as just as high a risk as the worst borrowers who are least likely to pay back their debts, and you gain no benefit from reliably paying back your debts. But with them, your good borrowing is kept track of, and good reputation means lenders trust you more to pay your debts back, so they’re willing to lend more, and they are willing to charge less interest.

Removing credit scores changes nothing for bad borrowers, and hurts good borrowers.

Yeah, this is just people not understanding how credit scores work, part #57294, lol

republikkklown

Grow up, please, lol.

The fact that a worker who barely makes ends meet pays 10-20 times the taxes Amazon pays is… Fascinating in a dark way.

That is absolutely not a fact, lmao.

Isn’t it clear?

No. :)