procrastitron

joined 2 years ago
[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's not good enough because the vast majority of their wealth will never be spent. It will just be used to accumulate more wealth.

That's why all of these billionaires have real tax rates in the low single digits (or less). Even with opulent spending habits they keep most of their gains unrealized, so they are never taxed.

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

Note that the inflation adjusted average rate of return on the stock market over the long run is ~8% (https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1980)

That means a 2% wealth tax on billionaires would not make them lose a single penny. Instead, it would just slow down the rate at which their wealth grows (while still growing exponentially).

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

The problem is that you’re eating too many bears. You need more variety in your diet.

Your compost bin should be mostly green vegetables, followed by smaller amounts of fruits and grains. Keep the bears as just an occasional treat.

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

I would have failed by finding one valid solution (3) and then prematurely stopping.

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

That’s true but the same issue applies to both the article (which doesn’t use the term “statutory rape”), and the editor (who likely doesn’t have any legal expertise).

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

They’re not lawyers, though… they’re reporters.

They’re just reporting what the prosecutors accused the person of and if the prosecutor didn’t use the term “statutory rape” then the reporters probably shouldn’t either.

They don’t want to get the reporting wrong if they aren’t experts on the subject and even more so the don’t want to expose themselves to lawsuits if they do get the reporting wrong.

I really don’t think the reporters are trying to minimize the heinousness of the crime (at least not in this case). It looks more like they are just being conservative in what they state.

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The smallest reptile that we know about.

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 66 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Also note that subsequent cooking doesn’t prevent food poisoning.

That will kill off the microorganisms that are the root cause, but it won’t remove the poison that they already produced.

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 44 points 4 weeks ago

It wasn’t being marketed and sold as a meme product. It was being marketed and sold as critical safety equipment.

On top of that, it was being sold during a pandemic when such equipment was being used continuously by large segments of the population.

It shouldn’t be surprising that large numbers of people bought it; the company selling it lied to those people to trick them into buying it.

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 111 points 1 month ago (7 children)

The perfect material for Tesla’s new cyberboat

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To be clear; the items in my list are my rebuttals to the now-deleted comment I was replying to.

I.E. those are the things I was asserting as being true, not the things I was disputing.

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It’s hard to tell where to start with all the things wrong with what you’ve said:

  1. Palestinians include people of multiple religions.
  2. Muslims do not believe they are God’s “chosen ones”
  3. Neither does Islam have any concept of birthrights based on religion.
  4. Palestinian claims to Jerusalem (and Palestine in general) aren’t based on religion but rather the fact that it actually is their land.

It’s sounds like you’ve been taken in by Israeli propaganda that tries to misrepresent the root causes.

The real root cause is colonialism. It’s not about religion at all except as an excuse to colonize the region.

view more: next ›