CaptnNMorgan

But they're shit because the people who work for them take all the money. With the cap greed is a much smaller factor and would likely lead to those charities to either get their shit together or shut down

Edit: and you're right in an ideal government charities wouldn't even be necessary because taxes are handling everything a charity would but it will never be perfect and I think giving people the option of where their earned money goes would be a lot less aggravating than being forced to give it to the US government

But doesn't that have a lot to do with the fact that millionaires and billionaires are buying property and jacking up prices? If the cap is 1 million and someone sells their house for 1 million, if they make any more money that year, it goes to taxes. That would give incentive to people to actually live life instead of being completely focused on the rat race. I don't think 1 million is a good cap, certainly not with the value of the dollar being what it is. However, I do think setting a cap and having it automatically lower a little bit every few years is a good idea. That would need to also be accompanied with a limit on liquid assets to be gradually taken down as well, if anyone is hoarding money, they would be forced to either give it away or donate to charity if they didn't want all of it going into public programs. There shouldn't be limit on what someone can buy/own.

It didn't age well imo

You can make custom classes and name them whatever you like

I've been arguing with idiots on YouTube insisting Ki Adi Mundi being in the show breaks canon. Their references are tops cards and misunderstanding dialogue from the prequels.

What are you talking about? Nobody mentioned politics in this thread.

There are smart homophobes. They use science, however flawed it is, to promote their arguments. Cutting out religion would take care of the few vocal people who genuinely believe being gay is against their religion but it definitely wouldn't take care of the larger problem which has always been xenophobia.

Thank you for elaborating the actual case, this makes sense.

This is obviously a victory for humanity overall, but does anyone think the Supreme Court could take this new definition and use it to take guns away from regular people? I'm an idiot so if anyone can tell me why this isn't a possibility, I'll be relieved. The thing is, if Trump getting elected again does lead to the fall of democracy in this country (which I doubt, but it's definitely more possible than any other candidate we've ever had), couldn't the Supreme Court take guns away from people who opposed him?

You have no idea

I say apparently because I didn't go to the school and look at the litter box. She moved across country because there were litter boxes in her kids classrooms.

I wasn't saying they aren't doing it, I was saying it's not okay. The person I was commenting to was trivializing it by comparing it to doing chores at home.