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.

It’s the same among “Conservatives” in the US, Russia, and now apparently China.

They all say that we’d need “high birth rates”, which is just not true.

Think about it: Automation and AI have the potential to put lots of people into unemployment in the next 20 years. For the sake of preventing that unemployment, it’d be good if people had fewer kids. Yet for some reason, governments struggle really hard to comprehend that simple connection.

deleted by creator

The best shit even. Some would call it great! All the experts agree with me, that i have the best shit!

(/s)

“In the face of the disruption of order and acts of systematic violence, the state will enforce its constitutional mandate to guarantee peace,” said Juan Carlos Orillac, minister of the presidency.

It is telling that the only direct quote in the article comes from the side of the state, not from the side of the workers.

Journalists, do a better job. Report on people’s view, not company’s point of view of things.

But the question is – why?

My honest belief is that somehow, spaceflight is good for the people in the US because it creates jobs:

Think of how the Space Race of the 1960s brought jobs all across America. On top of that, it inspired a generation of scientists.

Both are valuable for a society, especially for the US, where these kinds of jobs are especially desirable.

That’s why the launching areas are typically huge areals where not many people live. On top of that, rockets are typically launched eastwards (due to earth’s rotation) and in coastal areas, so they fly the first few minutes over the ocean. Should something blow up, it does so over the sea, where it doesn’t matter too much.

that’s where rode-sharing could come in.

thanks!

what is their concept of hell?

?

ok i guess then it’s just my personal experience that Israeli struggles get highlighted more.

it seems to me as if we’re mostly seeing videos about Israel getting hit in the news.

That matters because it distorts public perception: It makes it seem as if mean Iran is bombing Israel, while in fact it is also true that Israel is bombing Iran. It’s about proportional reporting of facts.

As always, the article primarily gives the view as seen from Israel, Tel Aviv; But where is the view from Iran?

it actually made sense back in the medieval day when contraception wasn’t a thing and “marriage” was a legal contract that guaranteed that the kids would get fed. nowadays it’s just a habit out-of-time.

Reading the article, that dude just sounds like a sad person with no true hope in life.

Nevertheless, she said, Leto kept calling her, “always at one, two, three AM”. “And the conversations turned sexual. He’d ask things like: ‘Have you ever had a boyfriend? Have you ever sucked a dick?’” she told Air Mail.

Sounds like a drunk alcoholic.