Let it be based on the best person for the job. If that happens to be a black woman then fine, but the race and gender should not be a requirement at all. Saying that you will only choose a black woman is just as racist as sexist as saying you will only choose a white male.
I think a lot of the left agree with you, and obviously the right hates her, probably more than Biden. I also feel like the far left has grown a lot lately, the fact that Bernie even won some states in primaries just shows how big the far left has become.
I know he initially promised to pick a woman, but I’m pretty sure he changed that to black women, saying he has like 4 to choose from. Either way it’s bad taste to make such an important decision openly based on race and gender.
So we agree that nobody wants Harris as president? And that voting for Biden is how we might just end up with her as president?
He may not die, but I think it’s reasonable to think he will be deemed unfit to serve, or even step down voluntarily.
I can really see this going either way if Biden stays with his decision to run. I know every year people complain about having two bad choices, but Biden V Trump round 2 has to be a record for the actual worst options possible.
I think the issues with both Biden and Trump are fairly obvious, but another issue is that if Biden does win, there is a fairly good chance we will end up with a president Harris, probably the one person people like less than Biden as a democratic president. I think she lost so much credibility when Biden promised he would pick a black woman as a VP, basically cementing the idea that part of her qualifications for the role of VP was based purely on gender and race.
It only bankrupts idiots like those on /r/wallstreetbets or those who put all their money into one stock. Yes the market may go down, and it may go down a lot, but that’s not going to make you bankrupt unless you make extremely dumb choices.
Luckily most retirement plans come with a target date fund, which is an easy way to diversify and get basically guaranteed gains.
Also, it’s the only retirement the middle class has, so you can’t destroy it.
Of course I know what hedge funds are, and that people manage them. It’s all about actively buying and selling stocks, bonds, and options.
You can call it a terrible retirement vehicle if you want, but it’s literally how the middle class is able to retire. From 401k, to Roth IRA, to other much every other retirement account available to the middle class, it’s based on stocks, and it’s worked well for a ton of people.
Why do you think stock has value? It’s because it’s a piece of ownership of the company. Yes it’s a way for the company to get some capital, but it’s also the way for private company owners to cash in on their company being successful.
Why is being paid in ownership insane? It’s directly tied to the performance of the company, if the company does well the stock does well, and it’s incentive to drive the company in the right direction to reward employees of all levels with stock.
It’s insane to tax this ownership, it’s not worth the amount it looks like. If an owner had to sell their stock, the stock value would plummet not only because of the huge uptick in supply of stock available to trade, but because the person running the company now has little to no stake in the success of the company.
You know who this also screws over? All the middle class people trying to retire on their stock values going up. You tax wealth, stock values will plummet, and there goes the middle class retirement, no thanks!
Most of the wealth these billionaires have is ownership in their own companies, to take away that ownership because it’s worth too much according to the stock market is insane
Nobody is actually suggesting income tax brackets here, they are suggesting taxing loans and taxing wealth. The things being suggested here have never been done, and yes they are radical because nobody had been crazy enough to implement these ideas ever in the whole history of the US.
It is radical though, especially given the context.
I mean we are talking about a US issue, so yeah it does matter what the US thinks on US issues, and it really doesn’t matter what the rest of the world thinks.
There aren’t many countries out there who don’t have a history of that stuff, I don’t see why the issues of the past matter at all in this scenario.
Radical according to basically the whole country of the USA.
You realize your ideas that are also being suggested by most people here are radical, right? Radical left is a thing, and this place is overflowing with it.
It’s one thing to suggest doing something about the cuts, but most here don’t think that’s nearly enough, proposing literal theft and preventing movement outside the country. I would argue it’s just as insane here as it is in far right circles, just a different kind of insane.
Remember that we already said 10M was below the cutoff of the wealth tax, so they aren’t being taxed heavily. Furthermore, they should be able to live their whole life without investing it if they are already like 35.
I think you underestimate how fast $10M can be spent. There is a reason why most lottery winners go broke.
Whoa, so they can’t afford toys that should generally be banned for ecological reasons anyway? Again, if you can’t figure out how to live a happy life without a personal plane, you probably need to go to rich guy rehab. Just fucking find some cozy spot and live in idle luxury.
So basically you want them to just live like you do, without any extra luxuries? I’m guessing they also can only afford a modest house since even a normal house is $500k+ and then triple that if they have a mortgage.
I don’t think it’s a problem if people own a private plane as a hobby (you know, like a private pilot) or a big boat for enjoyment. I’m not talking about crazy expensive stuff here, even middle class people are owning private planes.
People don’t functionally own land, they nominally own it at the mercy of the state. Many things work this way. Your problem is that you can’t see beyond a narrow paradigm of how society is organized, as though a particular version of liberalism was ordained by God as being the natural order. It is not.
You and others here have explained your version of liberalism, I believe you call it Marxism, right? I don’t believe it’s the answer for anyone but communist countries like China, and I don’t think that’s the answer for the US or most other countries. Do you have another version you are proposing?
Turns out money laundering can actually be stopped and assets can and have actually been seized for various reasons.
We aren’t talking about money laundering or anything illegal, we are talking about people wanting to move for a better life. Only the worst of the worst countries will punish you by stealing everything from you simply for leaving.
Were you not suggesting we require all the tax breaks over the last however many years be paid back in full? If not I just have been mixing you up with one of the other dozens of far left crazies I’ve been chatting with.
If you just want to repeal tax breaks that didn’t have a guaranteed life that hasn’t been reached yet, then that’s fine I would probably agree to it depending on the side effects it might cause the middle and lower classes.
but it objectively is a large amount of wealth for one person to have, enough to never work again.
If they drastically reduced their lifestyle, don’t get taxed heavily, and are able to invest it, then sure. However if you don’t allow them to invest and they don’t drastically reduce their standard of living, that’s not nearly enough to retire on.
Even a fairly modest personal plane or small yacht will cost a million or more over years of use.
but I don’t think I can teach you how to do philosophy coherently.
If your idea of philosophy involves theft, I don’t think I want to learn it from you.
That is to say, in this hypothetical, large-scale capital flight is illegal,
Ah, this concept is so insane that I just can’t imagine it ever happening. In reality the companies and rich would leave and there would be nothing you could do to stop it.
This doesn’t happen with financial assets though, at least not that I’ve heard of. Can you name an example of " we are going to give you a break on these taxes or fees" then that turns into “you did nothing wrong, but we are going to want those 20 years of unpaid taxes/fees that we told you that you didn’t need to pay, we changed our minds”.
10M is nothing to someone who owns billions, it’s all a matter of perspective. I have a problem with people who use or suggest immoral actions, and that includes you. Stealing from anyone is immoral, I don’t care how much they have or how big of a company it is.
What is against the law here? It’s not illegal to move your business outside the country, it’s not illegal to leave the country, what you are assuming is illegal is actually perfectly legal. It’s not smuggling if you are just moving legal goods. Even you can leave a country like the US and transfer your money to wherever you go, it’s not illegal at all.
Our medical care isn’t limitless, there is only so much we can actually do. Look at how Biden has been progressing even with the best care in the world, he clearly isn’t in the best shape and it’s only going to get worse. It’s entirely possible he gets worse fast and for there to be nothing that can be done about it even with the best care we can give him.