u/gandalf_der_12te

i'm torn about this. most of these things happened in the middle east, and then it's self defense, kinda, since the US invaded these countries.

if the interest is just as high as the general inflation, then the government can just take out extra loans to serve the interest without actually increasing the real total debt, because the nominal increase in debt is just eaten by the inflation.

basically when the federal government goes into debt, that basically means that the federal reserve which you can imagine like a big bank hands out a loan to the government.

the government doesn't really have to pay back that debt, ever. (it technically has to but that can be avoided by simply taking out a new loan at a later time).

i hope i explained that correctly.

It's also interesting for California and other blue states.

Since Trump is attacking the blue states especially, there's a form of warfare there. As we all know, wars are really expensive and are often decided by who can stay solvent longer.

Normally, that would be California and other blue states, because they have the better economy. If they stopped paying taxes, that would severely harm Trump.

However, through the federal reserve, Trump can just print infinite amounts of dollars, and that effectively overrides the blue states' strong economy.

So the blue states have a serious interest in de-dollarization, sothat Trump's money-printing federal reserve becomes meaningless.

in general i would agree but many people were tricked into it.

are people in general for or against secession (i.e. splitting up the US into jesusland and the blue states)? poll by upvoting (pro secession) or downvoting (against secession) this comment.

Kolanaki, i guess you're not really getting the point here. The point is intentional cruelty to demotivate these people to ever come to the US again.

guns will make us safer because then the bad guys can shoot the badder guys and that will make us bigly successful.

massive /s of course

Hey that's antisemitic. You implied that Israel has made a mistake, which is impossible and very antisemitic of you to say.

i think the verb was concentrate, concentrate them into a sort of city or other temporary housing.

is the defenestration supposed to be a metaphor for something? i.e., they took too many risks and "leaned out the window too far and fell over" or sth 🤔

tax the rich! (slight /s)

what i'm wondering is:

who exactly wanted this war? i.e., i guess it was not a single-person decision. probably a number of oligarchs are behind it because they think they can profit from either the conflict or the outcome of it.

everybody knows that wars are hella expensive. i guess most wars are decided by economic factors, i.e. who can stay solvent longer. what did the oligarchs think would happen to their wealth due to the war?

Israel does not have a future after this. They're removing their own credibility, and the world knows it. They're nothing but a rogue state at this point, waiting to be put to sleep like a rabid dog.

Like a dying star undergoing supernova. A rampant destruction at the end.

no they were spot on. it just takes a while for the change to take effect in the outside world.

Short notice that kyivindependent.com is certainly not neutral on this.

I'm not contradicting you, just writing down some further notes:

• There's 3 important types of taxes: wealth tax, income tax, product tax. Wealth tax is paid annually as a share of total net worth, while income tax is paid as a share of profit/revenue/wages. Product tax is a tax on consumable products such as food or luxury items.

I think the best thing would be to increase wealth tax, and decrease income and product tax.

The reason for this is: Wealth tax taxes wealth-hoarding, i.e. wealth that is stalling and not contributing to economic *flow*, i.e. production or re-distribution. Income and product tax inhibit the economy and slow it down, but don't actually prevent wealth hoarding: Even if a billionaire is faced with 50% income tax, it'd simply take them twice as long to accumulate the insane amount of wealth. Wealth tax counteracts that, by reducing the size of the pile of gold these billionaires sit on effectively.

----

That being said, there's 3 main types of wealth:

• real estate (land, agricultural fields, houses, ...)

• infrastructure & business (streets, vehicles, factories, shops)

• abstract values, such as money, expensive paintings, gold, which have no direct inherent value and only possess value because of our communal perception of things.

Some of these things can be moved easily, such as money, while other things can basically not be moved at all, such as real estate & infrastructure. It makes sense to tax the things most that are hardest to move, i guess.

An international wealth tax CAN be done, the only obstacle is mere political will.

There is real issues that need to be tackled, such as Ireland's tax desert. There's a couple of them around the world (around 20 countries do this iirc). I guess forcing them to close their tax deserts is difficult, because you'd either have to pressure them militarily or economically. Pressuring them militarily is a no-go in today's time, and pressuring them economically might be challenging as these tax deserts could make a huge profit by offering lower taxes, and then taxing all the world's rich, as they all move there.

I think the best course of action would be to exclude billionaires who do not pay a minimum amount of taxes in *any* country entrance to the domestic market, as they do not see themselves as a part of society, as they deny paying their fair share towards society, it's fair to not let them participate in other parts of the society as well, such as doing business in your country. Business opportunity is a huge deal and very attractive for billionaires, who want to make even more money, so using that as leverage is very effective, i guess.

In other words, markets must be obstructed for investors who don't pay their fair share in taxes.

That's very good news.

As described in an announcement by the Spanish government, the initiative aims to create coordination between governments on the taxation of high-net-worth individuals to ensure they are not shuffling money abroad to avoid proper taxation.

I would like to point out that billionaires have to have an incentive to stay in one country, if their wealth is going to be taxed in that country. I.e., billionaires can only do business in a country that they pay their fair share of taxes in.

These articles are supposed to create sympathy for Israel or sth?

other systemic problems like no access to child care facilities, a culture that doesn’t value women and people exhausted by long work days? I might have read that this is part of the root cause in korea.

I dare say that that's probably not the cause why women today want to have no or fewer children.

I suspect it's more about economic factors, such as the prospect of having a stable job for the next 40 years, and the prospect of stability that this brings. Society changes so rapidly that it would be absurd to think that people are still gonna have well-paying jobs in 40 years. We're already seeing a Cost-of-Living crisis today, or rather, a crisis of jobs not paying a living wage. That's only gonna get more severe over time.

Compare that to other cultures around the world (consider developing countries such as rural africa was 30+ years ago, and medieval europe). They had rough lifes and often didn't value women. But they had *Stability*: They could be reasonably certain that their living conditions should be roughly the same in 40+ years from now, so they can have some children. If they can feed them today, the children will be able to feed themselves in 40 years. Because society was static like that.