philipallstar

5 ms·

1.
by philipallstar 5d ago
> In free markets, everyone steals everything they can, and stops everyone else stealing from them as much as they can. This is normal and expected. The ideology says that it will even out and converge to a fair situation. This is all no
2.
by philipallstar 5d ago
A blaring warning might've been better than a full-on block.
3.
by philipallstar 5d ago
> Pre-restricting the use cases of the device that YOU bought and have the ownership of is absolutely not OK. This is the same problem I have with my car manufacturer. They completely pre-restricted its flying capability.
4.
by philipallstar 5d ago
Use BBC iPlayer and you will see a lot of ads. Just for BBC content.
5.
by philipallstar 5d ago
> Electric cars were popular 15 years ago I can't believe the rewriting of history on this topic. They were definitely not popular. The Model S had just been released 14 years ago. They were not popular. Tesla transformed the worl
6.
by philipallstar 5d ago
> > "If you don't allow firms to hire immigrant workers, they just become smaller firms," Lewis said. "They are not replaced with US workers. Instead, the output of the firm shrinks, and there are fewer total worke
7.
by philipallstar 5d ago
Or cut something else. The assumption that all government money is spent perfectly on essentials is a huge issue that afflicts tens of millions of voters.
8.
by philipallstar 5d ago
> everything around how we tax these 2 forms of income is set up to beget inequality No it's not. Most people don't pay capital gains because things like houses don't have capital gains applied. I.e. the rules are set up s
9.
by philipallstar 5d ago
The internet costs money to run. Obviously you need to make money.
10.
by philipallstar 8d ago
If your wealth is 100% ownership of Tesla, say, and the government imposes a 5% wealth tax, you have to sell 5% each year of your ownership stake (because the lie of all this is it isn't wealth being taxed, it's ownership ) and
11.
by philipallstar 8d ago
No, for obvious reasons. "acknowledging" implies it's a self-evident truth that people are just refusing to see as such, when it just isn't. Completely different companies - in fact one is the Recording Industry Associat
12.
by philipallstar 8d ago
If piracy isn't stealing training definitely isn't stealing.
13.
by philipallstar 8d ago
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Yes, people who are labourers could also somehow creating funding pools that are big enough to start companies, but so what? That doesn't negate the fact that they will be disincentivised to do so b
14.
by philipallstar 8d ago
We already have giant amounts of tax everywhere, all the time. What makes you think we have no money for this?
15.
by philipallstar 8d ago
It's identical really. It's just instituting the nationalisation over time of all businesses.
16.
by philipallstar 8d ago
Your definition of "wealthier" is stupid, though, because it relies on a measure that doesn't actually apply to the person in question. A share's price is just "the last sale price of the same type of share", a
17.
by philipallstar 8d ago
> companies spent a long time telling us downloading single songs via Napster was the worst thing ever One's world cannot be so drawn in crayon that "companies" is a useful level of detail with something like that. There&#
18.
by philipallstar 8d ago
You've got spot the pattern though, right? Someone says they're going to make everything equal and they just need enough power to do it. Trouble is, that requires all the power, and a) the halfwits who end up in power are nowhere
19.
by philipallstar 8d ago
If you tax unrealised gains, say Elon Musk's SpaceX shares, all that means in practice is the government takes a certain percentage ownership stake in SpaceX every year until he has nothing left to tax, or he sells it to someone else a
20.
by philipallstar 9d ago
If your goal is to reduce investment that creates jobs for labour, then you should do that.
21.
by philipallstar 9d ago
> Makes sense IMO, much better to tax wealth than discourage transactions. It's much, much worse to tax wealth.
22.
by philipallstar 9d ago
Nordics are not socialist[0]. Socialism is central planning and control, sometimes created out of mass killings[1] [2], and often creating many deaths just from incompetent central mismanagement[2] [3] or grisly bureacratic rules[4]. [0] h
23.
by philipallstar 9d ago
Well, it is socialist in that the government basically gets to own more of everything you own every year.
24.
by philipallstar 9d ago
Surely only an absolute lunatic would pass that sort of law. And by then it's too late, because it's Socialism with extra steps.
25.
by philipallstar 9d ago
I didn't even see the actual problem with this originally: wealth is not what is or should be taxed. If shares I own go up and I don't sell them, I don't have anything to tax. It's only when I sell them that I should be
26.
by philipallstar 9d ago
I regret my accidental apostrophe there, and now it's there forever.
27.
by philipallstar 9d ago
> “Net” is not relevant If it's not relevant then just give every government employee a million dollars a year raise, but on the condition that it's taxed at 100%. Then you've raised all the taxes you need and the private
28.
by philipallstar 9d ago
> Actually you can blame them because it was the done thing throughout US history to build more homes when people moved to an area. And there is nothing more American than moving to a place with better opportunities or amenities. "T
29.
by philipallstar 9d ago
Fair. I would say the same about American big tech's close ties with the American government, by the way.
30.
by philipallstar 9d ago
> Everything has to be about the Palpatines versus the Skywalkers. It would have been such a better story if it turned out Rey really was a nobody, if the entire plot had the courage to examine its own mythology from the outside and esta

More ›