Again taxing anything for 100% is stealing, you can do 60-70% though. Sure, if you start with the assumption that things like property and wealth can truly be owned. I personally think 60-70% tax is stealing under that assumption, and that inheritance (and gifts) should be treated like any other income. But I'm starting from a different assumption that property is leased from society generally, and you only really own the value you create personally. When you die, there is no longer any legitimate owner so it must be redistributed. I believe everyone should have equal opportunity to succeed, and that doesn't work if kids can just ride their parents' coattails. There will always be some of that with parents using their connections to help their kids get ahead, but inheriting a fortune completely kills any need to actually compete to succeed. If we want a meritocratic society, we need to kill as much nepotism as we can. This article makes similar claims but from a little different perspective. Instead we should have a good system of social security which means everybody has a basis income which should allow them to properly survive and thrive a bit. Agreed, but without the "thrive" bit. I think we need something like universal basic income to ensure everyone is above the poverty line, but that should be the extent of it. Along with this, I think we should eliminate the minimum wage and let the market decide what's fair. However, this is completely separate from inheritance. I don't think the government should use that money for any purpose, it should strictly be redistributed if the person who died didn't choose any charities or whatever to donate to. The government should also give it to any survivors first if there's no will, up to the limit. I don't see it as a tax because the government isn't taking that money, it's merely facilitating redistribution. passing companies down Passing down shares would be subject to the same inheritance rules.

Sure, that is your reality,and I respect that you are sure that's the case (and in many cases it is), but I happen to believe that there are shades of gray from the whitest white to the darkest black. So you do you, I'll follow my own reality. I think we can easily be in agreement that following a man or woman because of religion is, not only detrimental, but also dangerous. Whatwe will certainly disagree on is that, for me, Jesus is God, and for you, believing that makes me n irrational sheep. And that's cool, I don't think that should be a reason for one of us to hate the other, or even simply be angry (or anything similar, my English vocabulary is not too extensive). I brought up religion because it was brought up. So, yeah, I'm not one of those that goes around pushing my believes on others, but the moment I see Jesus attacked, I will defend Him the same way He died for me on that cross.

X Stuck Paying Fees to Arbitrate With Laid Off X Workers

Time to head for greener pastures.

Unfortunately, pouring sugar into a gas tank will do just about zero damage to an engine. It might clog up the fuel filter, or maybe the pump, but the engine would be fine. Bleach on the other hand….

If AI constantly refined its own output, sure, unless it hits a wall eventually or starts spewing bullshit because of some quirk of training. But I doubt it could learn to summarise better without external input, just like a compiler won't produce a more optimised version of itself without human development work.

They’re trash because the entire rag is right-wing billionaire propaganda by design.