501–510 of 589 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
forbes sell entertainment. their clients are not even who read it, but advertisers who but advertisement. readers and space for ads on the magazine pages are both called inventory in the biz.
A legit biz, I mean, look at everyone reading and commenting here! :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normally you'd be right, but we are eerily close to a WWIII right now...
We have been "eerily close" to WWIII since the day WWII ended. There's nothing really special about today's situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism only works when you have a middle class. Protecting billionaires’ abilities to hoard wealth is not in the interests of the middle class. To be charitable I’ll point out that in general that’s not what you’re arguing for. There is a real sense in which personal freedom is essential to people making it out of poverty. Protecting one person’s and not another’s would defeat the point. Here is the compromise. I…
"Capitalism only works when you have a middle class" - I never saw a scientific demonstration of this. It is always in the "everyone knows" fallacy class of statements pulled out of the landing gear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Taxes are also money invested, in schooling, infrastructure, etc. Not presently. Most tax dollars are spent elsewhere and infrastructure/education get less than 7%: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder... Even that spending is not effective. Drive California roads and you’ll often see fixes that aren’t much better than the damaged roads they replaced. And let’s not talk about our wonderful t…
What are you doing to change this? Are you trying to make the situation better? California has been run into the ground for the last thirty years intentionally. Many residents love having mentally ill people die in the streets. They have created an entire system to support this. Money has been drained away from roads and schools to pay for ever growing "programs" to employ rich white ladies so they can brag to their…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Taxes are also money invested, in schooling, infrastructure, etc. Not presently. Most tax dollars are spent elsewhere and infrastructure/education get less than 7%: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder... Even that spending is not effective. Drive California roads and you’ll often see fixes that aren’t much better than the damaged roads they replaced. And let’s not talk about our wonderful t…
It's invested. In infrastructure, schooling, endless wars on foreign soil, etc. You not agreeing with the quality of the investment is a separate issue. You probably don't agree with every investment in the private sector either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normally you'd be right, but we are eerily close to a WWIII right now...
We have been "eerily close" to WWIII since the day WWII ended. There's nothing really special about today's situation.
That said, 2 developed nations are at war, and a NATO nation is being substantially threatened.
Can someone fix this grammar? > The data wasn’t erroneous, Treasury officials found, who are legally forbidden to discuss tax filings.
It seems awkward because removing the parenthical expression between the commas leaves a broken sentence: "The data wasn't erroneous|who are legally forbidden to discuss tax filings." The best correction would be something like: "Treasury officials, who are legally forbidden to discuss tax filings, found the data wasn't erroneous."
"Treasury officials found that the data wasn’t erroneous, though they are legally forbidden to discuss tax filings."
The problem with the original text was that the rule that the officials had was said BEFORE the main point about what they found - which is why the "officials" were brought up in the first place.
This one states the important part of what they found, and then gave the addendum that they have a rule that adds a conditional to the nature of sharing the finding.
English is weird, by the way.
Matt Levine touched on this briefly today, and I liked his two cents: >It’s kind of cool? Like you could imagine a hierarchy, in roughly ascending order of wealth: >Too poor to pay taxes. >Rich enough to pay taxes. >Rich enough to not pay taxes. >Rich enough to not even bother with not paying taxes.
> Rich enough to control a dominating force of violence - collect taxes.
Pretty obscene that somebody could have so much wealth that $7,000,000,000 is just the tax bill. Also weird that it's framed as a "gift."
The article highlights that it’s not actually that hard for the ultra-wealthy to avoid a massive estate tax bill through proper tax planning and investment strategies. What’s striking here is that this individual wasn’t even the richest person to ever die, yet he paid the largest estate tax in history, likely by choice.