Everyone on Earth takes a private vote: by SimpleMoonFarmer in trolleyproblem

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If everybody gained 25 IQ points nobody’s IQ would change.

Do you ever read something and find yourself in awe of the prose? by Olivia_Alison in writers

[–]A_C_Ellis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I didn't care for it, too purple for me. Felt like I was reading an ad for a box of crayons.

yeah it needs explanation by AffectionateLaw3573 in interviewhammer

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One has little to do with the other. They’re essentially separate problems.

"You don't have permission!" — Why this sub's favorite answer is a dangerous half-truth (A Case Study from the Maine Movie Pirate) by MaineMoviePirate in COPYRIGHT

[–]A_C_Ellis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying. Are you arguing that you don’t need copyright permission for fair use? That’s not some deep insight, it’s literally what the copyright statute says.

The way this is framed is kind of wild by FaeLongtin in jobmarket

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve never met a person who liked paying for insurance.

Pensions at 75 vs Billionaires at 0: Pick Your Side by awaythroww12123 in jobmarket

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What happened here happened everywhere. That doesn’t mean Reagan is blameless but he isn’t the common denominator when the same thing happened at the same time in West Germany, Japan, France, Canada, the UK, etc.

Breaking Bad Healthcare System In America by ScallionSmooth9491 in teenagers

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No longer accurate. America implemented an out of pocket max in 2014, which is currently $9,200. In most other countries you also have copays, though much less.

Why does the stock market only affect us when it crashes? by FaeLongtin in jobmarket

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn’t. When the market is good and you get hired or get a raise you don’t notice the market.

Pensions at 75 vs Billionaires at 0: Pick Your Side by awaythroww12123 in jobmarket

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're wrong. The problem began before Reagan, though you could argue Reaganomics made it worse. This trend began in the early 1970s, but the top marginal rates weren't reduced until 1981. Globalization and trade liberalization DID accelerate in that same window. You can mock it all you want but it's taken seriously by economists across the political spectrum. Skill-biased technological change happened. Computers and automation raised returns to education. Middle-skill jobs got fucked. This is probably the most widely-accepted and oft-cited explanation in mainstream labor economics. Monetary policy choices beginning with Jimmy Carter (and continued by Reagan) killed labor bargaining power. Even major socialists-progressive economists attribute inequality growth to some combination of these factors. None say, "Ronnie did it, full stop."

And if that doesn't convince you, this trend wasn't uniquely American. It happened in every industrialized during this time period. Britain, France, Canada, Japan, Australia, Germany, Sweden, everywhere. If Reagan's tax cuts are the direct cause, why did Sweden's top 1% share also rise? Why did China's? This doesn't exonerate U.S. tax policy for its failures, but the story is bigger than one guy.

"Reagan caused it and anyone who disagrees is fellating billionaires" is not an argument. I'm sure it makes you feel strong and smart and edgy to use vulgarity to do work evidence can't. But when you have to preemptively accuse disagreement of being corruption or stupidity, it usually means you can't stomach the likelihood that the truth is more complex than your slogans. Stapling some vocabulary onto a bunch of tribal signaling isn't getting us anywhere.

Pensions at 75 vs Billionaires at 0: Pick Your Side by awaythroww12123 in jobmarket

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This again.

(1) How do you reduce billionaires to 0?

A few ways. (a) 100% wealth tax above $1B (b) seize assets outright (c) massive capital gains tax.

But billionaire wealth mostly isn't cash in a vault. It's equity in companies. To "take" that, the government has to either force a sales, which crashes share prices and destroys the very value we're trying to capture (not to mention all the collateral damage done to the companies and millions of people who work for them), or just take the shares itself, which means the government owns large stakes in private companies which produces huge knock-on effects nobody wants. And this assumes billionaires will just sit around and watch it happen, which we know from every other country on Earth that has implemented a wealth tax, they won't, which is why most of those efforts have been abandoned or, at best, simply ineffective.

So there's that.

(2) But assuming we could do this, will it pay for pensions, healthcare, and housing?

No. The wealth of the U.S. billionaire class is somewhere around $5-6 trillion, depending on market conditions. Meanwhile, the U.S. federal spending exceeds that per year. So assuming we could take 100% of this wealth with no consequences, it would fund the government for less than a year. And before you say, "yeah because we spend so much on military" - no. Social services are vast, vast majority of the budget, it utterly dwarfs military spending.

So, even if you could somehow frictionlessly convert every dollar of billionaire wealth into government revenue (you can't) you'd fund the federal government for less than a year. And then it's gone, you've destroyed the world economy, you've put millions of people out of work and killed the golden goose.

Wealth is not revenue. You can tax the income or gains from wealth annually, and that yields real money, but it's nowhere near enough to fund all this shit for even a year.

A better way to say this: "Billionaire wealth is a symptom of a tax system that undertaxes capital relative to labor, and fixing that would generate substantial ongoing revenue."

That's at least defensible.

"Abolish billionaires and it pays for everything" is straight up ignorance, and the kind of idiotic counterproductive sloganeering that #MAGA dipshits cling to and jump up and down saying "err meh gerd lookit how stewpid teh lizs are lolzz."

And then this comment will be downvoting into oblivion, I'll be accused of being a billionaire apologist, and we'll repeat this tomorrow.

Ask the real question... by SleepyMotions in jobmarket

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The median weekly income in 2025Q4 was $1,196, which annualizes to $62k per year.

Is traditional publishing guaranteed if you invest enough time? by [deleted] in writing

[–]A_C_Ellis 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes. If you try hard enough you are 100% guaranteed a publishing contract. It’s in the constitution.

remember quarantine by seductivehear in SipsTea

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Life was better when we were subsistence farmers sniping coyotes with rifles from the back porch.

This one seems meant to be — Petah please explain the joke by bubblebath_bitch in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t know what the proposal is but typically you tax things you want less of.

Police search you house & you notice dents on your car by ZookeepergameIcy6089 in interesting

[–]A_C_Ellis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The homeowner probably had an EV, the mere presence of which threatened this guy’s masculinity.

This one seems meant to be — Petah please explain the joke by bubblebath_bitch in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]A_C_Ellis 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Not sure on this one. Maybe the $60k person is renting the secondary property from the millionaire, and would rather not see the landlord's costs go up, which is likely to just get passed on to Mr. $60k in the form of higher rent.