5 ms·
Math doesn’t math because it’s not about absolute losses, but practical losses. If you go from 100mil in assets to 10m, you’re fine. If you go from 100k to 10k
by RangerScience 1y ago
Math doesn’t math because it’s not about absolute losses, but practical losses.
If you go from 100mil in assets to 10m, you’re fine. If you go from 100k to 10k, you’re not.
- amazingamazing 1y agoyou think poor people have 100k in equities? lmao
- triceratops 1y agoWhat about people going from "negative net worth, but employed" to "laid off because the company's stock price is down"?
- amazingamazing 1y agothe exact same could be said if you taxed corporations more w.r.t. lay-offs so no I don’t really care. unless you’re arguing that taxing corporations similar to these tariff amounts wouldn’t result in layoffs?
- RangerScience 1y agoNo, but I needed some kind of number (100k in equities would be middle/upper-middle class?). Ah; I should’ve gone with 10m-to-1m and 100k-to-10k income. Those are reasonable numbers for either end of the scale, and illustrate the point.