41–48 of 48 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. The US tax code does allow business to write off R & D.
Not anymore for software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yeah, of course you want early retirement so others can slave away to create the world you live in without doing anything. No. This is why equality is important. $200k is enough.
Yes, it is reasonable for some people not to have to work for survival. A person can earn non-work through age (retirement), vulnerability (disabled, children), lottery, or contribution. We want neither pure communism nor pure capitalism. (I've seen other comments from you on here, you know you're being an unreasonable edgelord.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The major reason California is expensive isn't because of the things that make it nice to live here, it's because a faux-environmentalist love of sprawl and protection of single family zoning from denser, more sensible housing options for those that want them. Instead, Californians with high incomes, but not enough to pay the outrageous price for ownership, pay outrageous rents to landlords that repackage unupdated 1…
Single family zoning was implemented back in the days when California was a red state. California is still a very red state; there are more Republicans in California than most of the U.S. South combined .
And for fixing the current housing problems, there are still a good chunk of Republican representatives in the state legislature and they are even more strident in defending zoning and keeping out apartments than the Democratic representatives. At the local level, though, I think that housing issues are an axis that is pretty non-partisan, with only small amounts of partisan influence on the beliefs of people. I think the YIMBY groups have tried really really hard to keep it from becoming partisan, because even if it does become a partisan issue and move some deeply Democratic places, it would then cement Republican places against the issue and it would be nearly impossible to make overall progress on the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is reasonable for some people not to have to work for survival. A person can earn non-work through age (retirement), vulnerability (disabled, children), lottery, or contribution. We want neither pure communism nor pure capitalism. (I've seen other comments from you on here, you know you're being an unreasonable edgelord.)
I think it’s quite clear you want to place the limit at the the limit of your own achievable targets. Which sure, I’m on board with no taxes on people with the name Rene. Very self serving but not too different from yours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The limit should not be a fixed dollar amount, but rather relative to what it gets you. We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc. $1m is nowhere near enough for that. So let's not try to figure that, say, $3.6m is the appropriate wealth cap for 2026. Let's speak in terms of orders of magnitudes. $…
> We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc. Do we want that only ever be available to a privileged few? The goal should be to eliminate privilege such that the inequities of capitalism apply fairly (or unfairly) to everyone. $1m, A level of income which the vast majority of people will never see i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Billionaires are gross, millionaires are fine. You're committing the "slippery slope" fallacy in defense of excessive wealth inequality. (And if you genuinely believe what you're saying, recognize that your words are being taken as either disingenuous or foolish, and are having the opposite effect of promoting your cause).
Another thing I’ve thought about is having everyone wealthier than me have a 100% wealth tax. And it’s a pity that people consider caring about inequality disingenuous and foolish while people argue that some people should be millionaires while others are starving. Millionaires should not exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another thing I’ve thought about is having everyone wealthier than me have a 100% wealth tax. And it’s a pity that people consider caring about inequality disingenuous and foolish while people argue that some people should be millionaires while others are starving. Millionaires should not exist.
You think you're being clever in calling me out but you're just being a troll.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s quite clear you want to place the limit at the the limit of your own achievable targets. Which sure, I’m on board with no taxes on people with the name Rene. Very self serving but not too different from yours.
I think you're wrong, it's quite clear that there are objective levels of wealth that are positive for people to aspire to, and levels of wealth that are beyond what any one person should be able to control. You can strawman all you like but it's just bad faith arguing at this point.