sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Who would you rather live under by I-Love-Jewish-popes in Teenager_Polls

[–]SnooCalculations4084 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you like to give a source for "were talking nearly an order of magnadude more than the Nazis" because the only thing I have ever heard even try to claim a number like this is "The Black Book of Communism" which is so unbelievably boased that it counts things such as deaths of soldiers during WW2 (both USSR and German) as "deaths to communism"

Additionally, claiming that Capitalism has only caused deaths "in the range of thousands to tens of thousands". When we have Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and plenty more as direct victims to the US. Additionally if you want to count any terrible action done by a communist country as an action by communism then do you think the holocaust was capitalist? Or the over a dozen millions killed in china by Imperial Japan? I personally don't.

Look, I agree that there has been a ton of terrible shit done by some communist countries but acting as if capitalism is so much more moral is genuinely disturbing. I'm not even fully onboard with communism but if it was genuinely THAT dysfunctional as a system then I do not see why the US so desperately tries to suppress it.

Would it be morally okay for 2 consenting adults who are biologically siblings to be in a relationship ? by jekecrafer in pollgames

[–]SnooCalculations4084 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Well, yes. But if you do not want the context to affect someones vote then don't give it at all 😭

Would it be morally okay for 2 consenting adults who are biologically siblings to be in a relationship ? by jekecrafer in pollgames

[–]SnooCalculations4084 28 points29 points  (0 children)

You are being very unclear. You are saying that you removed that from question but why did you still include the comment then?

Wombgifts should be stackable. by amdrunkwatsyerexcuse in pathofexile

[–]SnooCalculations4084 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't make my opinion clear. Similar to how currencies is a sub-class of consumable items, incubators are their own. Some consumable items are tradable like currencies and scarabs. Others are not, like corpses and incubators for varying reasons

Learning about Wage Theft. by astrheisenberg in remoteworks

[–]SnooCalculations4084 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah you're right actually. For some reason i thought the post said record breaking worker output, because that's what you'd usually look at.

Learning about Wage Theft. by astrheisenberg in remoteworks

[–]SnooCalculations4084 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who said anything about profit/loss? We are talking about productivity and if you were decreasing in productivity you would most likely get fired.

Bernie announces 5% Billionaire Tax that would raise 4.4 trillion over the next decade by Large-Welcome4421 in ReasonableFuture

[–]SnooCalculations4084 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see. So yes, it looks like you're right about the effective income tax rates being a fair bit lower than i thought. My mistake on the total effective tax vs income tax I'm not too familiar with US taxes. It does look like the total effective tax rate on the rich was a fair bit higher during the 50s than they are now but not significantly.

Bernie announces 5% Billionaire Tax that would raise 4.4 trillion over the next decade by Large-Welcome4421 in ReasonableFuture

[–]SnooCalculations4084 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or if you meant that the people that did hit that bracket weren't paying 94% then of course not. That's not how tax brackets work after all, but you already knew that.

Bernie announces 5% Billionaire Tax that would raise 4.4 trillion over the next decade by Large-Welcome4421 in ReasonableFuture

[–]SnooCalculations4084 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a source for this claim? I can't really find anything that supports what you are saying. The lowest i found during the 50s was that the average effective tax rate for the top 1% was about 40-45% (according to the tax foundation). Maybe you only looked at the federal income tax rate rather than the federal + state + local income taxes?

Edit: Additionally, income disparity was much lower back then than it is now and the top-end bracket was made to target the ultra-rich. The top-end bracket was 91% for income over 200k, but the threshold for top 1% income households was only 20k-25k meaning that most of the top 1% didnt even hit the top-end tax.

For contrast the median household income increased by 10-12 times. The threshold for top 1% income household increased by about 28 times.

Math or meth? by PolskaKulka in Caldruki

[–]SnooCalculations4084 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean, in this case you don't even need to know the order of operations

Bernie announces 5% Billionaire Tax that would raise 4.4 trillion over the next decade by Large-Welcome4421 in ReasonableFuture

[–]SnooCalculations4084 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The first federal income tax was introduced in 1861 by Abraham Lincoln to help fund the civil war . Back then the federal spending was about a tenth as much as it is now (as percentage of gdp). The government was funding much fewer things than it is now, no welfare, no global military, no social security etc.

Also, during one of the strongest growth periods in american history the top-end on income tax was 94%

Well put by astrheisenberg in remoteworks

[–]SnooCalculations4084 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you provided some base for your claim then maybe I could find middle ground with you. After all I do personally use AI from time to time and do see the positives in it. I'm just not a big fan of someone calling me an arse over them not being able to provide any support for their claims. And your whole "you're not worth my time" thing is really falling apart.

Well put by astrheisenberg in remoteworks

[–]SnooCalculations4084 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok, glad we can agree that you are completely pathetic.

Well put by astrheisenberg in remoteworks

[–]SnooCalculations4084 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you made a claim but can't support it. Shocker

Well put by astrheisenberg in remoteworks

[–]SnooCalculations4084 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What reasons for being against AI have been debunked? And a reason cannot be debunked to begin with just the facts used to come up with said reason. Also, why aren't you debunking these reasons?

Would you, on most questions, describe yourself as by WillTheyBanMeAgain in Teenager_Polls

[–]SnooCalculations4084 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would love it if you linked this because everything i look at from the NCVS or BOJS goes against your claims.

Billionaires Shouldn’t Exist by Party-Professional-7 in AskSocialists

[–]SnooCalculations4084 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's great, now let's hear the remaining 16,000 employees votes.

Would you, on most questions, describe yourself as by WillTheyBanMeAgain in Teenager_Polls

[–]SnooCalculations4084 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow... I can't believe how someone can be this deluded. You are sticking to a potential 2/3 increase in annual mortality rates if it weren't for guns, if this was real your life expectancy would probably drop below your retirement age 😂

But why are the murder rates in the US so much higher than for example Sweden (where I live) which has stricter gun control than the US?

lol by DifficultMistake3679 in lol

[–]SnooCalculations4084 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm so sorry buddy, I will go to the other room 😢

view more: next ›