Cloning the repo (running git clone on your computer) is enough because it makes a local copy. Forking merely makes a copy under your account on GitHub though which is not going to survive if they go on a deleting spree.
RSS allows you to check all your sites at once, instead of manually checking many sites just to see nothing new has been posted. I can instantly see in my RSS reader right now that I have 14 articles in my Politics folder, 7 in my Tech, 6 in my YT, 18 in Music.
Have we? The culture and values that built this country are stained in blood, violence, and subjugation. I feel we are actually losing the enlightenment that came afterwards and regressing back.
As a kid in the UK one of the main ideas I had of the US was Cowboys vs Indians either as a show or a game, and the establishment of the US was largely that - white guys killing the native Americans and taking the land.
Well only a couple countries participated in the creation of the Atlantic slave trade, and very few in history have engaged in chattel slavery to the scale the USA did.
Seems like a very Americentric perspective. There's still plenty of chattel slavery out there right now[1]. In that respect, the idea that the US is uniquely bad is like the "evil twin" version of American exceptionalism[2].
It's hard to find other examples of it (or at least the inherent natural inferiority of one group of residents) being written into the country's foundational legal document. We are indeed exceptional in that regard.
It's time to get off your high horse. If you eat meat, future humans will regard you the same way as we regard the slave owners of yesteryear. Perhaps even worse.
Judge people by the ways in which they push their society's morals forward, not retroactively after hundreds of years of morals evolving.
No. Slavery is a unique evil and people knew it was a unique evil since the time of the ancient Greeks.
I refuse to accept "it was just the way things were at the time" when there were people opposed to slavery thousands of years ago. Aristotle wrote about them:
> others however maintain that for one man to be another man’s master is contrary to nature, because it is only convention that makes the one a slave and the other a freeman and there is no difference between them by nature, and that therefore it is unjust, for it is based on force.
There were abolitionists in the first days of the United States through to the civil war. People knew it was wrong or had ample opportunity to hear it argued that it was wrong, and furthermore, the inherent wrongness of it should be obvious to anyone that encounters it, and I don't give a moral pass to anyone that brushes it off because it was common any more than I do for American politicians that brush off school shootings because it's common.
Incorrect. There were some people that understood slavery to be a unique evil. The vast majority of humanity understood it to be "just how things were."
Really, not much different from how we view factory farming today.
Slavery is evil though. It's pretty straightforward. People that participated in it were wrong to do so, and that should be self evident to all participants. I don't accept any excuse for participating in the slave trade. I'm not special or unique to point this out, it's obvious no matter the century.
Would you like to argue that it isn't? The floor is yours. Otherwise your point about consensus is moot. Evil then, evil now, evil forever.
Slavery was obviously wrong but you cannot judge those that didn't understand this. Consensus matters. The morals of the time matter. It was a societal failing over a personal one.
If you think you can judge someone by the morals of today, you must then accept you are evil as well, since societal morals will continue to evolve.
You never answered the question: are you vegan, or do you contribute to the immense suffering and death of ~70b sentient beings a year? The suffering hours inflicted every few days exceed that of any atrocity in human history. It is the industrialized torture of billions of innocent beings for your pleasure.
If veganism becomes the norm, is it fair for future humans to judge your whole life by your consumption of meat, leather, or other animal products when there are so many people today that recognize it as a "unique and horrifying evil?"
It is a strange form of exceptionalism for you to judge those in the past but not yourself, because the delta will be similar over long enough timeframes, and if you do partake in any of these things you won't be seen as much different.
> If you think you can judge someone by the morals of today, you must then accept you are evil as well, since societal morals will continue to evolve.
We can judge them by their peers at the time. The U.S. founding fathers didn’t unanimously support slavery, many of them opposed it but were committed to the idea of unity against England. Part of why we can be comfortable judging the slave owners is because their position was primarily based on greed - if we suddenly discovered that cows were sentient, a ton of people would stop eating beef but there was no doubt or ambiguity about black people in that regard, only ruthless awareness of how rich you could get without paying your workers.
> if we suddenly discovered that cows were sentient
People eat beef mostly because they’re used to it and they think it’s good for them. Everybody knows cow are sentient, there’s a strong intuition (why wouldn’t they like other animals ?) but also tons of literature. There’s not much doubt about it neither.
I agree with the slave owners, however the spectrum of acceptance is large where it’s part of the society. What about someone that make profit by doing business with the slave owner? Someone that buy products coming ~probably~ from that work?
Or someone assisting an "indigene showcase" because they know nothing about this humanoid that look, speak and act differently than the people they used to known (that are from 100km away max). Not different than a zoo, and both are tremendously cruel.
Everyone knows cows are sentient (not sapient) in a way not dissimilar to a pet, everyone knows factory farming causes immense cruelty and suffering to them, our peers call this out and the text+video evidence is well documented and freely available, 20% of humans abstain, but most people eat it to satisfy their taste buds.
So the cases are not dissimilar at all because your contemporaries do call this out. If causing such immense death and suffering for pleasure in the face of easily available alternatives is not greed, what is?
You are only highlighting my point how you are seeing something as acceptable that will probably be viewed as an unspeakable cruelty in the future, and yet you feel comfortable judging past humans by an increased standard whereas you clearly are not comfortable applying an increased standard to yourself.
You are a product of your society as much as the slave owners of the past were of theirs. This is why it is senseless and hypocritical to paint past peoples acting within the accepted mores of their society as evil - as if we are any better, relatively speaking!
It makes sense to celebrate those that push things forward, as opposed to condemning those that are simply doing what they know to be normal.
Sorry, yes, I did mean to write sapient. I'm not sure that's a conflict, however, as much as further along a spectrum. Whether or not eating cows is ethical is possible to debate because there is valid question about how much of a mind they have but that was never honestly in question for humans. The people who kept slaves had to invent things like the “mark of Cain” theology _because_ they knew their victims were intelligent, feeling creatures like themselves and had to justify treating them in a very profitable way. All of those elaborate “the gods want this” constructions exist to get people to override their natural instinct to recognize someone as a person.
This point is moot because chattel slavery of humans is worse by a large degree than eating animals. We don't need to debate whether eating animals is bad, that's a distraction.
We can judge past slaveholders. The shared humanity of another human is self evident the instant you behold a slave, whether 300 years ago or 3000.
I think you're just deliberately being obstructionist and entirely avoiding the point I'm trying to make. Calling the core point of the argument a "distraction" is very convenient for you.
Torture is bad no matter how you cut it, and it's especially bad if you torture a sentient being for your own pleasure. Can we agree on that?
Saying whether it's better or worse than slavery is like playing the oppression Olympics, they are both atrocities and demonstrably evil actions.
When you kill an animal, you can see it struggle, cry, suffer, die. You can hold and see its pain in your hands. To do so for your taste buds is another level of evil. To make it live an entire life of suffering? That's really not much different in terms of badness.
The fact that you can't acknowledge this highlights the double standard you apply to people that came before you but not yourself. Everyone is wrong to participate in the systematic torture and murder of 70,000,000,000 sentient beings a year. Does that make all the participants evil?
> Saying whether it's better or worse than slavery is like playing the oppression Olympics, they are both atrocities and demonstrably evil actions.
I'm not trying to engage in oppression Olympics, I'm just saying, slavery is basically the worst things people can do, so far beyond the morality of whether or not it's ok to kill animals, or even torture them, that I'm just confused why it's brought up as if it's relevant.
I don't think killing animals is a great thing to do, and factory farms are awful. But humans are humans, and constantly just hitting this "what about animals" things is bizarre to me. I'm not trying to be rude, I just simply don't see the relevance. Slavery being just about the worse thing humans can do means that all the other bad things pale in comparison.
I'm not saying it's always valid to apply modern ethics to people from various time periods - it's bad, but understandable, that people used to beat their kids, or waste food by sacrificing animals and leaving them out to rot "for the gods." My point is that slavery simply is a massive exception, it's second-to-second murder, taking a human and trying to make them not-human. So that's why anything you could throw at me that we do today that people in the future might say is wrong - jailing people, not housing the homeless, killing animals for sport, engaging in capitalism, you name it, none of them come close to slavery in terms of sheer evil. And my point is that this isn't modern ethics, this is as self-evident a moral fact as is possible for morality. Many things in morality are grey, debatable. Not slavery. It's the One of Two things that are bad in every century, alongside rape. The wrongness of slavery, and rape, are immediately evident no matter what culture or era you come from.
And the reason people do this is usually to justify slavery. "Well they didn't know any better, so they had slaves." Justifying slavery with ANY reason is also bad. So I refuse to accept any attempt to do so, including comparisons to other things that happen to be bad, or possibly considered bad in the future.
The humanity of a human is self evident to any other human instantly. The humanity of an animal is debatable to this day. That's why slavery is inexcusably bad - the badness of it is also immediately self evident upon encountering it.
I don't think "the humanity of something" is a factor that plays any role in whether something is morally okay or not. Suffering is the factor that matters.
The reason slavery is bad isn't because of suffering, depending on how you define suffering. There were "house slaves" that had relatively comfortable lives. Slavery is bad among other reasons because it strips away someone's humanity and completely takes away their liberty, subjecting their life to the will of someone else. It's a constant ongoing theft of a human life, a reduction of a human life to property.
I'm glad you brought up suffering, I'm realizing better now why so frequently I hear these two ideas brought together by people inadvertently finding themselves on the same side as folks minimizing slavery in attempts to argue against harming animals (by engaging in debate about moral relativism). Purely from a suffering standpoint slavery doesn't necessarily have to be "that bad."
Drawing comparisons between it and arguments against harming animals are nonsensical because we're not talking about suffering, we're talking about other things that can only possibly involve humans. Thank you for sticking around and exploring your viewpoint with me so I could understand that better.
The things you listed have always been with us, sure. What we’ve lost is the ability to see objective truth. And maybe people celebrated senseless killing in the past too and we just didn’t have access to their sick mentality before the internet.
Mobs of white people (including children) used to gather around the town square to hang black people. They would literally have picnics while doing it. I feel like the majority of our population is historically illiterate. On the scale of senseless killings, this doesn't even rank.
This is the kind of rhetoric which seriously undermines the history of American philosophical thought. The things you mentioned are found in the history of every nation. It's important to keep track of what should be improved, while also acknowledging what worked well and why.
> This is the kind of rhetoric which seriously undermines the history of American philosophical thought.
Hard disagree. Ignoring it is what allows systemic injustice to persist -- why do we care, today, what Eugenicists in the early 1900s had to say? Jim Crow implementers and supporters? Daughters of the Confederacy?
If the reality of history undermines your respect for American philosophical thought, then perhaps the American philosophical thought is not quite worthy of the pedestal it was placed on.
You’re right that it’s important to acknowledge the pain and suffering caused by bad policy and practices, and it’s important to examine what went wrong so we don’t repeat those mistakes.
That said I think it’s important to separate good ideas from their troubled past and use them where they still apply. People are not perfect, but a good idea is good no matter where it comes from. Those good ideas shape culture and shape the destiny of nations. That’s what happened in America, and there’s a lot to be learned from the past. Unless the point is to undermine the recipe that made America into what it is today, then it doesn’t make sense to measure people who didn’t live in our time by our sensibilities, morality or ethics.
We can learn their good stuff, and improve on what they didn’t do well.
Maybe it would help to pluck out the few good ideas from the bad slop. What do you consider specifically unique in the American experiment that transcends the toxic swamp of suppression of freedoms America often engages in?
> the toxic swamp of suppression of freedoms America often engage
Seems extremist to take that view, especially when all nations have just as bloody or dark histories.
But a lot of what shaped initial American thought were Enlightenment ideals, primarily the works of John Locke. So the foundation is solid enough, but is there more that can be done to produce effective implementations? Definitely.
It’s important to note that there are good ideas everywhere, and no one culture or nation has had hegemony or monopoly on producing the best works over time.
I personally also like the fact that the way the American revolutionaries thought shaped the progress of American science up to the 20th century. Here’s a recent lecture on this, but there’s no recording that I can find.
First off, not extremist. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt there, perhaps you simply didn't recognize you undercut your credibility in a discussion when you dismiss people having a different view of history by assigning them to an extremist bucket -- nowhere left to learn or discuss when you start there. Further, mild whataboutism doesn't support your case either.
Second, the Scottish enlightenment wad wonderful! Not unique to America, so recognizing that the darkest parts of our history are decidedly not representive of the Enlightenment, my classical liberal ideals, and I suspect yours too, does nothing to the case that America did a good job adopting some of the ideals of the Enlightenment in the constitution. We could have gone the French route with the horrors of Robspierre, but we didnt, whether due to lack of population density, aristocracy, or any number of factors.
We agree completely that cultural differences, known as diversity, have outsized benefits.
I'll review the science idea.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. We really aren't far apart. I simply see slavery, genocide, and other horrors of the American past as necessary to recognize in order to set context, and in no way does that diminish the astonishing success of our American experiment. Indeed, in spite of these stains on our history, we remain a nation that does the right thing, as Churchill puts it, after exhausting all other options. And that's a uniqur thing to history.
In my view, if we can't acknowledge our past deficits, in no way can we comprehend the present flaws sufficiently to motivate action and collaboration.
It’s better for people to acknowledge that such a problem can span all types of people and cultures, so we can perform root cause analysis without being biased or disingenuous.
For example, see the hesitation of scholars in classifying Mongol invasions as a genocide. Is it the case that only white settlers committed genocide across history? If we think of it that way, then we’re ignoring atrocities committed by inter-group violence (war crimes), or same ethnicity violence. The goal should be to prevent violence between groups of people.
Regarding slavery, again it’s a problem that has occurred across time and cultures. Why were different ideologies and cultures unable to prevent slavery? It’s a disgusting stain on human history.
> Fascism has never in history been stopped by scholars. It is uncomfortable to directly acknowledge "what worked well."
Your comment maps precisely to: we've had zero network intrusions, why are we paying these cybersecurity professionals?
So much fascism and authoritarianism was blocked since WW2 because scholars called it out early.
Guess what scholars called out in the US in 2016, but most politicians put party over country? "We scaled back our cybersecurity professionals and saved a ton of budget! On an unrelated note, do we have data breach insurance?"
There is certainly room to punch fascists in the face when hostilities are hot. We can't start there and remain a tolerant society dealing with the paradox of tolerance. The first steps are shunning and ceasing support, isolating the infected into appropriately deprived states of resource loss, and not political violence.
I agree that civil debate and cooler heads deterred and delayed fascism in many cases. I was referring specifically to when it has taken hold and needs to be stopped.
An apt comparison would be instituting mandatory cybersecurity training for employees as a direct response to a breach. That is a great step to take post-cleanup but does basically nothing to address the issue at hand.
Civil wars have often occurred with war crimes (like killing non-combatants) with the purpose of performing ideology annihilation. At least one example is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre%C3%B3n_massacre
Creating distinct categories (ethnic cleansing or genocide etc.) of terrible things is an important exercise, but it can also dilute our overall understanding of human behaviors. The categories are useful for geological or historical analysis, but not for understanding baseline human behaviors.
Yes. People should have the choice to watch and understand what political violence. This is a powerful video and one that I don’t recommend everyone watch (that is a personal choice). If you are a person who has chosen to cheer on political violence, then I do suggest you watch. It’s is important to have a clear understanding of what that entails and the realities of that choice.
Fair points. I guess some level of uneasiness can be a good thing for some folks.
But I also recognize it can possibly trigger anxiety (overwhelming, in some cases) for some folks, even if you don't realize that it might (until it's too late).
Not suggesting we turn to censorship. But at the same time, I guess I'm mostly looking out for folks that may not be aware of the effects it could possibly have (e.g. naive and/or not taking warnings seriously enough).
Non-tip workers won't remember (or even notice) the phase-out. The damage is done and I agree it will incentivise people to tip less even after the phase-out.
Extending the 2017 tax policies, specifically continuing the capping of SALT deductions, leads to higher taxes for high income earners. That deduction was worth $100K to a $1M/year income in a 10% State income tax state earner. Even more when you add in property taxes.
If they had not been extended the taxes for those high earners would have dropped for 2025 and beyond.
The bottom 50% pay no taxes and the top 1% still pay 40+% of federal taxes.
Yeah this argument is so silly: "the top 1% pay 60% of income tax" oh okay, so as they get closer and closer to escape velocity from the rest of us, that number will climb to 1% paying 70%, then 80%, then 90%, so your argument to tax them gets weaker while the functional need to tax them gets stronger.
> The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States federal payroll (or employment) tax payable by both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, people with disabilities, and children of deceased workers.
7.65% of your check until you hit the cap. Employer pays a similar amount.
Additionally, removing the cap on FICA contributions would likely push Social Security back into long-term solvency, but that would be far too much of a burden on the top 1% of wage earners so it’ll never happen.
It wouldn’t _have_ to, that’s a political decision not a mathematical requirement.
But, even if you did it would still help tremendously and possibly still be sufficient. There’s diminishing returns where lower income people get a higher percentage of their income as a social security benefit. As long as that policy is maintained the ultra high wage earners would be contributing far in excess of the benefit they get paid back out
Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire. Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out?
Because they likely already have more than enough and have been blessed by society/civilization as a top earner who will enjoy a comfortable retirement without any social security, and they’ll be better off if other people that didn’t earn and save as much are able to retire without being destitute in old age.
That perspective could be someone who is willing to say “You know what, I already have enough, let’s make sure the floor is raised for everyone.” Someone who believes more in individualism would probably disagree with that perspective.
You think someone making just over $175K (the current social security taxable maximum amount) is able to save enough to ensure a comfortable retirement?
> Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire.
Currently, there's also a maximum amount of benefits. That could easily stay.
> Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out?
Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this.
So you want to raise the marginal tax rate by 12.4% (employee + employer) without the person getting any benefit?
> Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this.
And educated children, police, roads, etc benefit society and we were all at one point kids who could take advantage of public education, I don’t even have a problem paying more in taxes for universal healthcare that will reduce my + employer expenses on my healthcare.
But paying an extra 12.4% for what was suppose to be a retirement account that I don’t get any benefit from and reduces the amount I can save toward my own retirement is a bridge too far. Since 2018, I’ve been slightly above the increasing social security maximum. So it’s not that I’m one of the 1%.
It very much is. The more you put in the more you get out. From a financial accounting standpoint, the money you put in goes in a “trust fund” that is constantly borrowed against. It was never suppose to be that way. Social Security taxes is not allocated for current retirees. It just goes in the general budget.
It is not a personal account where what you put in is yours. You don't have a balance that runs down to zero if you live too long.
"The more you put in the more you get out" is only because that is how your benefit is computed. It is not because there is a certain amount of your money somewhere.
Related: your benefit is calculated on your 35 highest income years, not the total sum of your contributions. [1]
Other thing worth noting: the AARP page about SS myths that literally says: "Myth #7: Social Security is like a retirement savings account." [2]
The trust funds for social security are used to pay for everyone's current benefits and the rest is invested [3]. The fact that it's supposed to remain solvent still doesn't make it a retirement account.
Yes: it feels like a retirement account because you pay in now and (hopefully) cash out later. But that is only a feeling.
And finally, I started my GP comment with "nit" as one of my first three words because I understand the distinction is somewhat hair-splitty, but it is still real and relevant to how we think about it.
> By law, some payroll taxes are the responsibility of the employee and others fall on the employer, but almost all economists agree that the true economic incidence of a payroll tax is unaffected by this distinction, and falls largely or entirely on workers in the form of lower wages.
Who is charged the tax and who pays it are different things.
In some states, the stores are the ones that owe the "sales" tax (which in these states are actually excise taxes that the business can pass through to the customer).
The "tax" the customer pays in those states is the "pass thru" charge. To make things fun, Hawaii imposes the excise tax (on the business) recursively on any tax charges passed thru to the customer.
this is roughly equivalent to saying "we don't pay import tariffs, importers do".
it may be technically correct, but it still impacts individual costs/income at pretty much exactly the same amount, because the costs are just passed down the chain.
> That deduction was worth $100K to a $1M/year income in a 10% State income tax state earner.
What? Income deductions are only worth the marginal tax rate on that income -- ~40% on $100k of income deducted is worth ~$40k. (With the $10k SALT cap, he can still deduct $10k, worth about $4k.) The top bracket being reduced from 40% to 37%, and starting at a higher income threshold, likely saved the same high earner more than $36k.
You’re over mathing here - GP is simply saying that if someone lives in a 10% income tax state and makes 1m, they can deduct $100k from their income (presumably because it was never really theirs).
They specifically make the claim that the TCJA is a net negative for this hypothetical $1M earner in a 10% income tax state, and I don't think that's true.
> The bottom 50% pay no taxes and the top 1% still pay 40+% of federal taxes.
This tells us nothing unless we know how their relative income shares. If the bottom 50% earns only 20% of all income (just an example) this is quite fair. If they earn 60%, it's unfair.
The number of people who just trot out this statistic without context is quite tiresome.
And of course everyone pays sales tax, property tax (even if they're a renter), payroll tax and so on.
What do you think should happen to you if your house is more valuable in a year than the year before, even if you aren't selling or otherwise leaving that house?
It seems quite reasonable that unrealized capital gains would be treated differently for "a primary residence" vs "a multi-billion-dollar stake in a company controlled by the owner."
A far better question is: Why does my company pay me in cash (40% marginal tax rate) instead of "equity shares of 'special partnership units' representing the value added by verteu's labor" (20% capital gains tax)?
Or: "How did Mitt Romney's Roth IRA grow to $100,000,000 with a $7,000 annual contribution limit?"
But do they do income-like taxes on the added value? This seems to be what people (GGP) are wanting from the increase in stock values, ie, unrealized capital gains.. which is frankly terrifying.
Well, if you want to tax the stocks that the wealthy own.. why wouldn't you want to tax the stocks that many regular people own? Where do you draw the line between the two?
Wealthy people's stock in retirement accounts would also not be taxed. This can be considerable: Peter Thiel's Facebook investment was made in an IRA.
I imagine there'd be some net worth number, excluding retirement accounts, that policy wonks could work up. You draw the line between "wealthy" and "regular" there. Or, more likely, several lines because there would be wealth brackets similar to income brackets. Without that it would be a regressive tax.
I don't disagree with that. But it's a much bigger discussion. Abolishing all property taxes means city and county finances need fundamental re-working.
Capital gains receive favorable treatment under US tax code but are also a realized gain by definition. That is you actually have to sell the asset and are taxed based on any profit earned.
An increase in the estimates value of your real estate holdings does not trigger a capital gain. Your municipality, however, may use it as an excuse to increase their assessment of the value of your property, which is used to calculate the tax they charge.
His net worth increased due to asset appreciation. Nobody physically transferred him any money and it can fall back down tomorrow. Should he get a refund if Oracle stock tanks?
He pays less next year because Oracle stock is worth less. Just like property taxes on people's houses.
The math on taxing unrealized gains or losses doesn't work out for the reasons you pointed out. Property taxes, on the other hand, have been working for a long time.
> He pays less next year because Oracle stock is worth less. Just like property taxes on people's houses.
Does he get a refund if he loses money or is it just tax if you win, tax if you lose, tax if it doesn't move?
I'll give a few feelings about property taxes. They are known up front when the purchase is made. There's an expectation that they remain reasonably consistent year over year. In that way they can be consistently planned for, enough that it's seen as more of a maintenance expense for upkeep of local services rather than a wealth tax. If my neighbor sells their comparable property for double what they paid for it a few short years I don't expect my tax bill to have a massive jump. In my experience the city's assessed values tend to lag the true market value pretty significantly. The goal appears to use the assessed value as a means to have some graduated component to the property tax. Being a local tax, any significant jumps are seem to be avoided by design, lest it trigger angry residents showing up at town hall meetings.
With a wealth tax it can be highly variable year to year and out of one's control. If stocks go way up you're on hook for paying those taxes. Especially if you're Larry Ellison with a controlling stake in Oracle, you could find yourself in the situation of having to liquidate assets to pay taxes, thereby reducing your control of your own company.
My main objection to a wealth tax is many of its proponents see it as a means of reducing inequality and "leveling the playing field". I find these positions to come from a place of envy and reject them of those grounds. Many arguing in favor also assume that federal confiscation of wealth inherently benefits the public, as if its some benevolent charity. The reality is more mixed. There is seemingly no limit to politicians' ability squander money on nice sounding projects that give them good headlines while enriching cronies and delivering questionable actual value. It's nice to imagine that all that money is going to roads, bridges, schools, and research, but a whole lot is also going to spying on the populace, subverting foreign governments, and blowing people up.
> With a wealth tax it can be highly variable year to year and out of one's control.
It could be designed to be closer to property tax.
> you could find yourself in the situation of having to liquidate assets to pay taxes
Maybe. There are many other ways: the stock pays enough in dividends to cover the tax, the owner has other sources of income, the owner borrows against the stock to pay tax, and so on. In many dual-class structures the privileged class stock becomes common stock when sold so some founders could maintain control even after selling.
Private companies are trickier but still manageable. I don't want to turn this into a long post though.
> many of its proponents see it as a means of reducing inequality and "leveling the playing field".
I see it as a way to reduce income taxes. Welfare states are currently funded by income and payroll taxes aka taxes on labor. For the math to work out you need higher and higher tax rates or more and more workers. And you're fighting an uphill battle because improving productivity constantly reduces the need for workers.
Instead let improved productivity pay for the welfare state. Stop penalizing people for working by taxing them more.
That doesn't answer the question I posed. First off it conflates "high-earning" with "wealthy". Plenty of early career doctors are high earners but have a negative net worth. They pay more taxes than someone with millions in net worth but lower "income".
Secondly, just because the median earner pays a 2% average income tax rate while the top 1% pays on average 21% doesn't tell us anything about its fairness. It ignores income share.
I’m shocked that anybody with a smartphone is installing tracking fast food mobile apps, creating accounts, giving emails, and even enabling notifications. Another capitalistic hellscape flimsly masquerading as a great deal for you.
Different folks have different levels of acceptable risk. I generally agree, and won’t install an app for every single one-time purchase, but I eat a lot of
Taco Bell. The app makes sense for me. Many other companies also have web interfaces so you don’t NEED to install an app. (Many restaurants/bars that have a Qr Code on the table act this way.)
The sad side effect of these apps is that everyone else who don’t have it (by choice or by circumstance) pay even more because they don’t get personalised discounts.
I know because I didn’t know there was a McDonalds app until my brother got me something one time and he paid decently less than what was on the “offline” menu.
It’s a win-win for the companies. They get to extract more money from a majority of their occasional customers, while getting very accurate tracking and behaviour metrics of more dedicated customers.
Yeah, and at least on iPhone you can limit location tracking to when you're in the app and disable notifications. My email address isn't particularly secret, nor is the fact that I grab a coffee and an Egg McMuffin every now and then.
Well, you know, going to a drive-thru at a fast-food restaurant is already ultra capitalistic, so installing an app on a phone seems maybe just a little bit worse (and a great time savings).
