What on earth? Works on my machine

Edit: oh I actually read the code and now I get that you are not replying back a error you got from my message…

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

00000000000000000000000000000000

88888888888888888888888888888888

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

deleted by creator

I think the choice to have her as the leader of AfD is intentional. If someone claims AfD is homophobic or racist they can point at her as a counterargument. “If we are racist/homophobic, how could we then have a lesbian leader married to a Sri Lankan?” In a way it’s quite smart no? I don’t see how this is stupid.

Before someone comments on this I have to say I don’t support the AfD. I’m only speaking about the choice of party leader for the purpose of dismissing racist and homophobic accusations.

I did not know the history of the term tragedy of the commons. Thanks for educating me on that, I will now reconsider using that specific term in the future. However overgrazing is a real issue historically and still today. Overgrazing in the modern Sahel is a great contributor to the advancing of the sahara for example.

Are those generations really worse than those before it? Yes the environmental destruction is unparalleled but so were also the tools that enable that. In the Stone Age people could not have even come close to doing what we are doing right now to the environment even if they wanted too.

The term the tragedy of the commons originally referred to English cattle herders letting their cows overgraze public land because if they don’t overgraze it some other herders would do it instead. Stories like this are everywhere in history. The Vikings cut down every single tree in Iceland and the Faroe islands when they arrived with no care for the environmental whatsoever.

Whaling, the clubbing of seals, the extinction of the dodo. There are countless examples. And if we are talking pure human to human cruelty, no war in the 20th century comes close to what the mongols did.

The people of the 20th century were not more cruel or selfish than previous ones. They were simply the first ones given the tools and ability to pollute the whole earth.

My goto is explaining how a plant can in certain situations be a weed and sometimes don’t. For example in a farm which farms clover seeds the grass is the weed! In a farm which farms grass seeds the clover is a weed! Same in agriculture, stray plants from the previous years crop often appear as a weed in the current years field.

Wealth = Total Assets - Total Liabilities

Say I own a farm and I have a tractor worth 500 thousand dollars but I also have a 400 thousand dollars loan on it. Then yes I have 500 thousand in assets but only 100 thousand in wealth contribution. However say I own farmland for 12 million dollars and I have no loans on that farmland (as is quite common if the farm was inherited) then for that 12 million worth of farmland, asset = wealth. Same is true for the grandma example if she doesn’t have a loan on the house.

A progressive wealth tax is a good idea however I agree.

It’s repeated frequently because it’s true. A wealth tax that hits the truly rich is only a good tax if it doesn’t have side casualties. If you have a suggestion how to make a wealth tax that also doesn’t affect the examples I have mentioned I’m interested to hear it.

I think that instead of a basic wealth tax, a tax on rental properties and a tax on stocks and corporate ownership is more reasonable. The corporate ownership tax would also have to exclude small companies in which you are a worker yourself so as not to overly tax farms or other small capital heavy small businesses. I personally work with farmers and I know even a 1% tax on the total value of their farms would totally kill most of their profit. I personally know a farm near the city limits which is worth over 12 million dollars just because of the near-city land he owns and farms on. But his income is only average in the region. Yes he could theoretically sell the land to a real estate developer who could build over a hundred houses. But he only wants to farm so he doesn’t. I don’t think it’s fair to tax him on the 12 million, it would kill his business.

How do you design the wealth tax in order that only the"right people" are affected. And if income tax is totally abolished like the post above is proposing, how do we make sure that high income workers pay tax? One could theoretically have a high income but strategically keep ones wealth low by keeping spending and expenses the same. For example by renting a mega yacht instead of owning a mega yacht. Or leasing a luxury car instead of owning a luxury car.

Adding exceptions for residences and farms will just make those the most attractive places to store ones wealth and we don’t want mega rich buying up all the farms or houses. None are more skilled at finding loopholes than the extremely wealthy.

I’m interested to hear suggestions.

A big problem with wealth tax is that not all wealthy are what you think of as rich. Old grandma maybe lives in a nice house in a good area that her now dead husband bought for 2 pennies 60 years ago. Now that house is worth millions. That grandma is a multi millionaire, but she may have a very minimal pension. Wealth tax that house and she may have a larger wealth tax than her entire pension income and be forced to move out of her own home.

Another example would be many farmers. Most small farmers don’t earn a lot. Some even go minus some years. But the land and machinery they own are worth extreme amounts of money if sold. Wealth tax them and they will go bankrupt.

So a wealth tax is a very uneven tax. It benefits those who don’t save and those who own business which are not capital intensive. Why should a farmer pay a lot more tax than a work from home freelancer even though both may have the same income?

There are so many weird things that can happen. Imagine you own a small property of land. Then they discover oil on your property. Suddenly you are wealth taxed for an extreme amount of money even though you don’t even want to let anyone drill for oil on that land. Maybe you will even be forced out of that land because suddenly you can’t pay the wealth tax on it.

deleted by creator

They are by any metric very dense. According to population by area they are right between India and the Philippines, both highly dense countries. Another way would be by hectares of arable land per capita which would roughly indicate how large a population their agriculture could support. According to this they rank 137th and rank below countries like Japan and Norway, both known for being severely deficient in farmland. Only reason Israel gets by with their surprisingly high food self sufficiency is their use of highly advanced agricultural technology and intensive use of irrigation from both the Jordan river and desalination plants. However they are still unable to produce all the food they need and need imports.

The fact is that Israel is very small, especially for their population size. Occupying more land in Palestine and the Golan heights have therefore made strategic sense. And with the high fertility rate constantly increasing their population the land deficiency will only increase without occupying more territory. Look at Israel on satellite you quickly see how villages, towns and cities occupy a huge percentage of their land and this urban development is encroaching on their already limited farmland.

Wait I thought about it for a couple more minutes and there are humongous amounts of biological fruits that are not culinary fruits. Wheat, rice, sunflower seeds, almonds, basically any grain or seed. Well nevertheless I like the concept of fruit vegetable. But I do admit my point just became weakened.

While there is a clear biological definition of fruit there is no biological definition of vegetable. So why can’t something be a fruit and a vegetable at the same time. Why can’t a tomato be a fruit vegetable?

Using “fruit vegetable” would solve all issues because I can’t think of any culinary fruits that are not also biological fruit. So no word is needed for the opposite situation. The whole confusion stems from the idea that something must either be fruit or vegetable. End the binary state of fruits and vegetables!