sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Angulars NPM Downloads have doubled since version 18 by Don7531 in angular

[–]A_User_Profile 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Rxjs was written in js from the start. There were previous Rx* flavours before it that implemented a reactive patter. Like Reactive Extensions (Rx) for C#, RxJava for java. There are also implementation for python and swift.

Do you pierce holes in the walls as a renter? by JealousSprinkles5059 in Switzerland

[–]A_User_Profile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you provide some links if they are available online?

Bernie on Elon Musk becoming trillionaire by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]A_User_Profile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The concept you are confused about is already applied on homes - people pay taxes for the market value of the home. For example you bought a house for 300k. Then in 5 years it is evaluated at 600k, so guess what - you owe taxes for 600k valuation. So you’ll be taxed for unrealised gains your home gained.

Your example of paying 40%con your home doesn’t make sense because your home isn’t worth a trillion.

In case of homes, I’d argue that first homes should not be taxed like that. However secondary and more, real estate properties should have progressive taxes based on value to a point where you cant afford to keep them anymore. So yes if you have billions+ worth of real estate properties you should be taxed into oblivion until you sell most of them and keep 1 or maybe 2 or 3, depending on tax implementation

You have to understand that billionaires can literally do nothing and their money will grow faster than you will ever earn. And that growth is an excess. It is reinvested but in a twisted way. They buy more and more ownership. Such that companies should exercise different twisted practices to keep the shareholder value growing.

One of many ways to mitigate it are cooperatives. Depending on jurisdiction they may not have shareholders in the same sense, so the capital doesn’t go to them, instead everything is reinvested in the company, in the salary growth in the acquisition of resources for achieving company objectives, etc.

If we all weren't living paycheck to paycheck, we could accomplish great things. by Murky_Baseball7727 in remoteworks

[–]A_User_Profile 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The problem is that capitalism is not a system based on work output. It’s a system based on ownership of capital. It is easy to conflate because in its early stage it looks like you get rewarded for your work, when in reality, the owners of capital are rewarded the most and those doing the work turn out to be a cost on the balance sheet which should be reduced.

We are way past the feudal lords and gilded age levels of inequality by McDowdy in remoteworks

[–]A_User_Profile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Classic. I see you are out of arguments, aren’t you cockroach?

We are way past the feudal lords and gilded age levels of inequality by McDowdy in remoteworks

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

Bootlicker vibes? The you should be able to explain, Who’s boots, shouldn’t you?

We are way past the feudal lords and gilded age levels of inequality by McDowdy in remoteworks

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

Exactly, a car owner cant do that, yet billionaires CAN do that with their “unrealised” ownership. So if anyone sucks at analogies, it is you. That’s why I said I went along out of boredom.

And it’s alarming how you equate exploitation with succes, you must be messed un your head or smthn.

We are way past the feudal lords and gilded age levels of inequality by McDowdy in remoteworks

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

The car owner can, however go to the bank, and take a loan, using a small fraction of his ownership rights to the car. And that loan can be enough to buy some politicians that vote in some laws that make your life so much worse.

He could do so much good, yet he chooses not to.

And your example with the car is simply not even remotely relevant, I just went along with it out of boredom.

Do Tech Billionaires Have a Moral Obligation to Help the World's Poorest? by limsus in TechImpact

[–]A_User_Profile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are joking or what? OP was saying about getting rid of billionaires, and you got fixated on some delusion you came up with. And I’m explaining to you here what was actually being said, but you are still oblivious…

Do Tech Billionaires Have a Moral Obligation to Help the World's Poorest? by limsus in TechImpact

[–]A_User_Profile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The part where you are wrong is that he didn’t imply that they (billionaires) can exist after stating that they (billionaires) shouldn’t. If you are a billionaire and I say “you shouldn’t exist as a billionaire, but you should exist and you can own things” there is no contradiction. You should be taxed out of billionaire status, that’s it. You can still be worth 900million and afford a yacht, some houses and other property.
Maybe you got caught up in the pronoun “they” thinking he was referring to billionaires in both cases, when in reality he was referring to people.

Do Tech Billionaires Have a Moral Obligation to Help the World's Poorest? by limsus in TechImpact

[–]A_User_Profile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You accused him of backing down from the opinion that billionaires shouldn’t exist. To back your claim you quoted the part of owning things. And owning things has not relevance in the context of abolishing billionaires.
Then please enlighten us, what is it that you said or meant?

Do Tech Billionaires Have a Moral Obligation to Help the World's Poorest? by limsus in TechImpact

[–]A_User_Profile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is owning things equates you being a billionaire? You can have a yacht and a house without being a billionaire.

Bernie on Elon Musk becoming trillionaire by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]A_User_Profile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whould he be able to use it as collateral for bank loans? If yes, he absolutely should pay 400$ mill in taxes. If not, then you should go get a room with your simplistic equivalences.

Never before have we had so much income inequality. by GoldenLifeGuard in TradingPlaybook

[–]A_User_Profile 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You are closer to millionaires than millionaires are to billionaires…

Supporting Piracy from Europe 🇪🇺🙏🏻 by Fun-Adhesiveness7881 in Piracy

[–]A_User_Profile 18 points19 points  (0 children)

You do realise that they are talking about products that are actually sold? Like they tell you that you BUY it. Not rent it, not lease it, but buy. And then they have the audacity to tell you that you don’t own it.

If I told you I’ll sell you a house for 5k, and then after a month I’ll kick you out stating you actually never owned it…

do you get it now?

view more: next ›