zajd

42 ms·

301.
by zajd 11y ago
2000 people earn over $10m a year because capital gains aren't considered income. If you consider capital gains income, that number changes significantly. Also, why would you use $100m per person? It should be 90% of earnings over $1m
302.
by zajd 11y ago
Bahahaha I love comments like this. Honestly I assumed it because his comments just read like a bitter MRA. But if you want, you can click his profile and confirm it for yourself like I did. "Why do you assume a member who spouts KKK r
303.
by zajd 11y ago
How about say... collapsable threads? It is the year 2015 after all.
304.
by zajd 11y ago
Top 25% =/= "the rich" But to answer your question, I think income after $1m/yr should be taxed at close to 90% and that capital gains should also be considered part of that income. We can start there.
305.
by zajd 11y ago
Well honestly the concentration of wealth that we see today is a new thing in society. Pretty sure the only time you're going to find the type of inequality you see today is going back to feudal times. And honestly, I doubt it would ev
306.
by zajd 11y ago
The top 20% of earners tax rates isn't the problem, it's the tax rates on the .01%, which starts at around 1.9mm/yr Even better, the .001%, which starts at around 10.2mm/yr Not that people making $150k couldn't affo
307.
by zajd 11y ago
Yawn, what percentage of total income in the US is earned by the top 20%?
308.
by zajd 11y ago
Honestly CEO's getting paid a ton isn't really much of a problem as opposed to the US's absurdly low income tax rates for the wealthy. Not to mention capital gains... estate taxes... etc
309.
by zajd 11y ago
Well that's a nice way to conveniently just avoid addressing the obvious issues he's brought up with your original comment.
310.
by zajd 11y ago
Awesome information, can't believe I've never heard of this. Goodbye ln -s x 10
311.
by zajd 11y ago
No, I can assure you "then they added a CoC endorsing anti-white racism and anti-male sexism" is a phrase that betrays his political bent.
312.
by zajd 11y ago
There's no such thing as a majority group. "Minority group" is a sociological term, not a mathematical one.
313.
by zajd 11y ago
I guess that depends if you consider Uber some kind of brand new business type or just a lower class limo service combined with a taxi dispatch. Because there are plenty of drivers out there that do receive benefits, even if Taxi drivers ar
314.
by zajd 11y ago
I'm aware what they are arguing, the fact of the matter is they are wrong. Decisions like this: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-and-lyft-employee-lawsui... But as for your analogy, what's the big difference? U
315.
by zajd 11y ago
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5785928/the-democratization-of-... I specifically mentioned AirBnB is not one of the companies screwing their employees in the name of profits, but Uber/TaskRabbit/
316.
by zajd 11y ago
Yes, some laws are silly. Worker protections though? I don't think there's much to cheer about when the reason many of these sharing companies are so profitable is because they basically eliminate using employees for their "u
317.
by zajd 11y ago
I think the analogy breaks down when you consider what sharing economy companies do is explicitly illegal, especially in the places they operate. Granted, there's been differing levels of enforcement from various agencies, but Hillary
318.
by zajd 11y ago
I find it odd that AirBnB is consitently pointed at as a resounding success when, alongside Uber/Lyft/TaskRabbit/the now shutdown maid service, it simply relies on literally breaking the law and hoping that you'll make e
319.
by zajd 11y ago
body { position: relative; height: 100vh; } #content { height: <defined>; top: 0; right: 0; left: 0; bottom: 0; position: absolute }
320.
by zajd 11y ago
The fact that posts like these get upvotes makes me want to delete my hn account/bookmark
321.
by zajd 11y ago
It's hard to take these seriously when they equate digital ransom with actual kidnapping. Clickbait headline if I ever saw one.
322.
by zajd 11y ago
I can't believe the number of people defending Google in the comments on that article and elsewhere. I'm sorry, but if you actively recruit someone and interview them in person FOUR times but continue to mysteriously deny them som
323.
by zajd 11y ago
I'm not saying they should censor it, they should make it illegal to begin with. Personally, I'd rather live in a society where driving down the road screaming "die you fucking niggers" at black people is illegal, not ju
324.
by zajd 11y ago
Except that they haven't, it's actually a really good case where the law is able to discern whether or not something is hate speech.
325.
by zajd 11y ago
sockpuppets? This is my only account
326.
by zajd 11y ago
"Who watches the watchers" is a problem we have to deal with in EVERY aspect of law. There is a reason we have a judicial system and due process. There's no reason to think hate speech legislation wouldn't be treated the
327.
by zajd 11y ago
America isn't a protected class :)
328.
by zajd 11y ago
No because I understand the difference between art and conversation.
329.
by zajd 11y ago
False dichotomy. Try again.
330.
by zajd 11y ago
For the record, I would cheer those subreddits getting banned as well. Don't mistake my comments for a defense of reddit.

More ›