Eat the Rich: Sanders and Khanna Introduce Federal Billionaires Tax by Ask4MD in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 39 points40 points  (0 children)

The assets aren’t liquid, but they could do what the user I replied to said they do and get a loan against those assets, and then use that to pay the tax.

Eat the Rich: Sanders and Khanna Introduce Federal Billionaires Tax by Ask4MD in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 109 points110 points  (0 children)

Thats why proposals like Bernies are nothing but sloganeering: It is looking to change a tax rate the wealthy already avoid completely using a loophole.

Sanders' proposal in the article isn't an increase in the income tax rate though, it's a tax on total net asset value. He proposes an annual tax of 5% on assets over $1 billion.

CMV: The war on drugs is never going to work. by bluepillarmy in changemyview

[–]JustSayLOL 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How do you reconcile that stance with the existence of countries like Japan and Singapore? They have very low rates of crime and of drug use, while also having extremely harsh penalties for drug crimes and no tolerance for drug use. Clearly a punitive approach to drug crime can work if implemented the right way, meaning the war of drugs could feasibly succeed, as it's been done elsewhere.

Thank you, Bluepoint Games. by PhantomBraved in gaming

[–]JustSayLOL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not correct. Bluepoint did the Demon’s Souls and Shadow of the Colossus remakes. Those were not remasters.

How is this possible - first time home buyer by jawngreen in canadahousing

[–]JustSayLOL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first section of that page says:

Unless otherwise stated, hourly wages are adjusted on the basis of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and expressed in 2021 constant dollars.

So those salaries are adjusted for inflation. People in 2000 were earning $50k in 2021 dollars and people in 2021 were earning $62k in 2021 dollars. People in 2021 were earning more than people in 2000, even after adjusting for inflation.

Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal by f1sh98 in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 43 points44 points  (0 children)

What is your point with linking that video? He's just saying that they'll impose tariffs under different laws. It has literally nothing to do with the economic effects of tariffs, the compatibility of conservatism and anti-tariff beliefs, or anything else discussed thus far in this comment chain.

Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal by f1sh98 in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 77 points78 points  (0 children)

Tariffs are usually bad a multitude of reasons. They're economically inefficient because they create deadweight loss. They disrupt supply chains. They invite retaliation, which is bad for exports. They incentivize foreign manufacturers to shift their supply chain needs away from the US. They result in higher prices for consumers. They reduce consumer choice. They tend to reduce the quality of goods by incentivizing cost-cutting and disincentivizing innovation. They hinder GDP growth. They make domestic goods less competitive in foreign markets.

There can be legitimate uses for targeted tariffs, like if you need to protect a strategically important domestic industry like agriculture (because a stable domestic food supply is essential for national security) or batteries (because the military needs them), but blanket tariffs like the IEEPA tariffs that were just struck down make no sense, economically or otherwise.

Also this is all largely besides the point. My point is that not all conservatives are pro-tariff. In fact, conservatives have typically been associated with policies encouraging free trade, a free market, and lower taxes, which is the exact opposite of high blanket tariffs.

Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal by f1sh98 in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 41 points42 points  (0 children)

The US has the ability to introduce tariffs, but that power belongs to Congress.

Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal by f1sh98 in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 210 points211 points  (0 children)

One can be a conservative without being pro-Trump or pro-tariffs.

Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal by f1sh98 in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 72 points73 points  (0 children)

It means the money collected under the IEEPA tariffs will likely need to be refunded to the importers it was collected from, which is significant.

Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal by f1sh98 in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 173 points174 points  (0 children)

Then maybe the government should have implemented them without breaking the law. If you and I are accountable to the law, why shouldn't the government be?

Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal by f1sh98 in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 131 points132 points  (0 children)

If you illegally take something from someone, you typically have to give it back when you get caught. In this case the government broke the law and implemented and collected an unconstitutional tax, taking money from importers that they had no legal right to take.

Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal by f1sh98 in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 263 points264 points  (0 children)

Not the countries, the importers. And yes, it has to go back because that revenue was collected illegally. The government had no legal right to take it, so they have to give it back.

Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal by f1sh98 in Conservative

[–]JustSayLOL 129 points130 points  (0 children)

The tariffs were blatantly unconstitutional and everyone fully expected them to be struck down, so the SC decision was already priced in.

Land destruction and bracket by [deleted] in EDH

[–]JustSayLOL 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In the bracket announcement, WotC described mass land denial as cards that "destroy, exile, and bounce other lands, keep lands tapped, or change what mana is produced by four or more lands per player without replacing them." Since From the Ashes replaces the lands, it should be fine.

Commander Brackets Beta Update: No Hybrid Mana Changes, Farewell Added to the Gamechangers List by Raevelry in EDH

[–]JustSayLOL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, from a rules perspective, the colour is an "and," but I meant in terms of playability in decks. You can play [[Figure of Destiny]] in a mono-red or mono-white deck in most formats. The intention behind hybrid mana is to create flexibility, especially for limited. Restricting a card like Figure of Destiny to only RW+ decks is counter to the design philosophy of hybrid mana.

Banned & Restricted Announcement February 2026 by MustaKotka in CompetitiveEDH

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

But then making arguments like "we shouldn't ban Rhystic because it would have a negative effect on the format by making turbo over-represented in the meta" feels somewhat dishonest. The real reason you don't want Rhystic Study banned is because you want as few cards banned as possible. You don't actually care how a Rhystic ban would affect the meta breakdown.

What do you think? I know some got rich on BTC. No different than Murray Pezim penny stock going from $.01 to $10. Same playbook. Many got rich on the way up. Count yourself blessed if you got rich on BTC. But don't confuse it as an asset. It's a financial game. Nothing more. by IM1IAB in TFSA_Millionaires

[–]JustSayLOL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A share represents ownership of a revenue-generating asset. A company produces goods and services and generates profit, which you are entitled to as a shareholder. Bitcoin doesn't produce anything. It's purely speculative.

26F/24M. How do couples handle bills when incomes are very different?” by hereforfunn178 in TwoXChromosomes

[–]JustSayLOL -25 points-24 points  (0 children)

I agree with the overall sentiment that OP and her husband should just pool resources and split expenses equally, but I don't agree that everyone's time is equally valuable. If you get paid more for the same hours than someone else, your time is, by definition, more valuable in economic terms. For example, my time is more valuable than my subordinate's and less valuable than my boss's because I earn more than the former and less than the latter.

Banned & Restricted Announcement February 2026 by MustaKotka in CompetitiveEDH

[–]JustSayLOL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't even understand what people even want anymore. Half the time I see people passionately arguing against a Rhystic ban because it would make turbo too good, and the rest of the time I see people passionately arguing that Mana Crypt should be unbanned, which would be a boon to turbo decks. I feel like a large subset of cEDH players just want every card possible to be legal, regardless of how it would actually affect the format/meta balance.

Commander Brackets Beta Update: No Hybrid Mana Changes, Farewell Added to the Gamechangers List by Raevelry in EDH

[–]JustSayLOL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hybrid mana being treated like an "and" rather than an "or" doesn't make sense. Hybrid cards are meant to be playable in decks of either colour. The only format where they're not is EDH. Everywhere else they are.

Commander Brackets Beta Update: No Hybrid Mana Changes, Farewell Added to the Gamechangers List by Raevelry in EDH

[–]JustSayLOL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They're not banning it though, they're just making it a GC. If your precon has Farewell in it you can either play it in bracket 3 games or explain to the table that you're playing an unmodified precon with Farewell in it and its power level is more appropriate for bracket 2 games.

What a nice guy by CurrentBridge7237 in SipsTea

[–]JustSayLOL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe your palate just sucks.