Fredthefishlord @ Fredthefishlord @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

1

Comments

718

Joined

2 yr. ago

Aren't they a charity?

If by "most" you mean your one anecdotal experience

No, instead y'all stomp around at 8 in the morning, and mow your lawns at 7 in the morning, rudely walking up night shifters...

Soft power is important. One of the usa's key ways to build soft power was aid that was a lot more generous and a lot less conditional than many other power's aid.

One train of thought says that if they take the role of being the so called global police, the aid is the responsibility that comes with that power. And although I don't fully agree with the logic, it's pretty solid

There's no conflict with the whole chem stuff and life having a meaning. Something accidentally can still create its own meaning

Serial it's important to note, while the conviction was certainly done through wrong ways, it did not prove he was innocent in completeness iirc

Classic example of calling someone an idiot just because they disagree with you on something that's primarily about subjective values.

Or could like,,, be a. Actual city doing that?

A hunting cabin is purely a luxury. There's nothing authoritarian about having high taxes for luxuries, and no, blanket taxes on luxuries are not inherently authoritarian.

Sure, it could unfairly impact people, but since in this situation there's no needs, only luxuries, the balance of how increased housing supply fairly easily balances the scale.

And no, the point of my original comment is to understand impact. Realize harms the law could create, and don't do it blindly. But that's just to understand what you're putting on the scales.

Progressive taxes are not authoritarian in nature holy shit man.

Genuinely, I'm saying this to bring up that it's an ill effect that will come about, and to show OP that it isn't as clear cut and dry morally as rich get screwed, and houses get easier to buy. I don't especially think an exception clause is reasonable, I believe they will just be abused, and it's simply better to accept some level of negative consequences for the benefits.

They can barely split it because they're all broke af not because the house is expensive. The house and land are pretty cheap

No, it shouldn't hold up societal progress. But not being aware of how your policies actually affect people is just plain bad. I agree with progressive taxes on multi house ownership, but you also need to understand that will mean people who are less rich than you think losing them, it's not just people that can afford them. And it's not as far an edge case as you think, I believe

Governments really should be shifting entirely to Linux. Reliance on corps not to corp is not good practice for a government

He could've funded 4 months of American healthcare!

My extended family in Michigan keeps a hunting cabin that they split costs between 5 people on and can still barely make the mortage... Is that clearly able to afford more taxes?

I mean this genuinely is a good concept.

Groceries don't really get more expensive, because the methods for producing food don't really get less efficient over time; if anything, it's more efficient. So there's no real reason for them to become more expensive.

There is reason though. Making them more expensive increases money in flow. Prices aren't just based on supply

If people who care about climate don't have children, there will be less people who try to put laws in place the help the situation.

.... Are sewers private in your area? Must suck man