Elon Musk to buy Twitter

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Of course it does. Only a OTT narcissist would not acknowledge the monetary and human resources used in building a successful business.

No, the municipality is a VENDOR, not a PARTNER. They provide water and sewer services and get paid for it. 

 

When it does things, it's not doing them for YOU. It's doing them for THE CITY. And while their previous decision to lay water lines may have ultimately benefited you........ their very next decision could just as easily ace you out...........

 

Because the next decision they make............ is the one they think will be EVEN BETTER for THE CITY! (Just ask anyone who has lost their business to Eminent Domain, because they wanted to build a park, a school, or a fancy new shopping center! Lol) 

 

Municipalities ain't your partners! - - Lol - - If you think they are, well, you need a little more clear-headed narcissism in your life! ????????????

 

Cheers! 

[Berkshire]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And why did you mention that the CEO of Twitter is "Indian born"?

Because most right wing nutters are racist.  Oooops!  Couldn't help it.  I hope he can prove me wrong and explain why he would mention something so incredibly irrelevant to the conversation.

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He doesn’t make a rocket himself.

 

He employs some very talented people who do it for him.

 

He’s a modern day ‘Edison’.

Well thanks for that , and there was me thinking that Elon makes all the space rockets and satellites on his own without anyone elses help . 

  

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

and that's what he is trying to do. How cooperative the "Indian born" CEO will be to "reveal" the true nature of the fake accounts is the real question.

Does he have to follow the same rules and regulations as people born in other Countries ?

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Because most right wing nutters are racist.  Oooops!  Couldn't help it.  I hope he can prove me wrong and explain why he would mention something so incredibly irrelevant to the conversation.

I also wonder why he put "Indian born" in quotes. I do because I'm quoting him but he wasn't quoting from the article which I don't believe even mentioned Agrawal's ethnicity.

Edited May 20, 2022 by placeholder

[KanchanaburiGuy]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And why did you mention that the CEO of Twitter is "Indian born"?

India has a somewhat different culture than other countries. So, someone born and raised in India may approach business with a somewhat different business philosophy than we are generally used to. 

 

That could also mean that some of the assumptions underlying many of the comments made in this thread.......... are simply wrong. 

 

Now, I have no idea whether this is true for this individual, or for Twitter, itself. 

 

I'm just pointing out that there aren't no  reasons for pointing out he's "Indian born." Indeed, there might be some fairly good ones! 

 

Assuming there can't be......... is just as prejudiced........ as you seem prepared to accuse the other person of being! ????????????

 

Cheers! 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

24 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Does he have to follow the same rules and regulations as people born in other Countries ?

Whether or not he's willing to speak up may not be defined by rules and regulations. Whether or not he speaks up may be determined by the moral and ethical boundaries that gave shape to the culture he grew up in. 

 

Surely this is not a difficult concept to grasp for the many farang living in a foreign country and culture, is it? 

 

Cheers! 

Edited May 20, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Whether or not he's willing to speak up may not be defined by rules and regulations. Whether or not he speaks up may be determined by the moral and ethical boundaries that gave shape to the culture he grew up in. 

 

Surely this is not a difficult concept to grasp for the many farang living in a foreign country and culture, is it? 

 

Cheers! 

And you you think that USA/European guys will come out and tell the truth?

Do you think Mr Musk, who quite clearly lied in Court in his case against the cave diver , would be any more open and honest ?

  If twitter does have more Bots than stated , no one from twitter would freely admit to it , whether they be born in India or Indianapolis .

  The suggestion that White guys are honest and Indians are cheaters just isnt correct . 

[placeholder]

57 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

India has a somewhat different culture than other countries. So, someone born and raised in India may approach business with a somewhat different business philosophy than we are generally used to. 

 

That could also mean that some of the assumptions underlying many of the comments made in this thread.......... are simply wrong. 

 

Now, I have no idea whether this is true for this individual, or for Twitter, itself. 

 

I'm just pointing out that there aren't no  reasons for pointing out he's "Indian born." Indeed, there might be some fairly good ones! 

 

Assuming there can't be......... is just as prejudiced........ as you seem prepared to accuse the other person of being! ????????????

 

Cheers! 

 

32 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

And you you think that USA/European guys will come out and tell the truth?

Do you think Mr Musk, who quite clearly lied in Court in his case against the cave diver , would be any more open and honest ?

  If twitter does have more Bots than stated , no one from twitter would freely admit to it , whether they be born in India or Indianapolis .

  The suggestion that White guys are honest and Indians are cheaters just isnt correct . 

Even if there were evidence to back that up as a general statement about Indian people, and as far as I know there isn't, grandpapillon didn't provide such evidence, It's extremely unlikely that Agrawal's could have risen so far were he inclined to do  anything that contravened the advice of expert and expensive counsel.  

[Jingthing]

If it is true that Twitter has been partisan more left, so the solution is a takeover from a clearly unhinged ego mad billionaire to make it partisan trumpist republican?

Does not compute.

 

 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

If it is true that Twitter has been partisan more left, so the solution is a takeover from a clearly unhinged ego mad billionaire to make it partisan trumpist republican?

Does not compute.

 

 

 

Life is more complex than the Republicans V Democrats in the USA . 

Not everything revolves around Biden V Trump 

[Bkk Brian]

New Policy just announced by Twitter ????

 

Introducing our crisis misinformation policy

 

Today, we’re introducing our crisis misinformation policy – a global policy that will guide our efforts to elevate credible, authoritative information, and will help to ensure viral misinformation isn’t amplified or recommended by us during crises. In times of crisis, misleading information can undermine public trust and cause further harm to already vulnerable communities. Alongside our existing work to make reliable information more accessible during crisis events, this new approach will help to slow the spread by us of the most visible, misleading content, particularly that which could lead to severe harms.

 

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2022/introducing-our-crisis-misinformation-policy

[GrandPapillon]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Your argument here is just another way of stating anything's possible. But the issue isn't one of possibility but probability.

again you are projecting, and I stand by my comments about the SEC, I have a feeling they will look into this if the numbers are significant. You are trying to downplay the whole thing with assumptions and weak arguments, as usual.

Edited May 20, 2022 by GrandPapillon

[GrandPapillon]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Because most right wing nutters are racist.  Oooops!  Couldn't help it.  I hope he can prove me wrong and explain why he would mention something so incredibly irrelevant to the conversation.

how is that right wing racist? please explain, I am curious ????

 

kettle? ????

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by GrandPapillon

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

again you are projecting, and I stand by my comments about the SEC, I have a feeling they will look into this if the numbers are significant. You are trying to downplay the whole thing with assumptions and weak arguments, as usual.

I'm making assumptions? Gee, I'm the one basing my arguments on a "feeling"? A "feeling"? Really?

[GrandPapillon]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm making assumptions? Gee, I'm the one basing my arguments on a "feeling"? A "feeling"? Really?

love your typical passive aggressive argument ???? that's your trademark ????

 

yes, a strong feeling based on experiences, but you knew that ????

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by GrandPapillon

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

love your typical passive aggressive argument ???? that's your trademark ????

 

yes, a strong feeling based on experiences, but you knew that ????

 

 

My mistake. I thought yours was just a feeling. It turns out it's a "strong feeling". And it's "based on experiences".

And all I've got to back me up is the virtually unanimous opinion of experts in the field.

Clearly the odds favor an anonymous someone who has a "strong feeling" that is "based on experiences". In opposite world.

[CharlieH]

Reported troll comment removed.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Y'know, when a municipality lays down waterpipes across the breadth of the city, some of that water will get used to make coffee in coffee houses, bread in bakeries, fill fish tanks in pet stores, and water plants in garden nurseries. 

 

But that doesn't mean the municipality deserves to be treated as a partner........... when they didn't build the building or the coffee house business; never roasted or ground any coffee; never waited on customers, stocked the shelves, cleaned the equipment and dishes; never created and paid for advertising; never put forward any investment for equipment and fixtures. 

 

Yes, the municipality deserves a tiny, tiny bit of credit for bringing water and sewers to that block. But it was tons and tons and TONS of work and imagination and ingenuity and time and money and effort....... by people who have nothing to do with the municipality......... that turned that coffee house into a thriving business. 

 

So too the contribution of DARPA to the internet, relatively speaking.

 

There are literally tens of thousands of successful businesses on the internet......... maybe hundreds of thousands......... that created 99.999% of their success all on their own......... with DARPA perhaps deserving the remaining 0.001% of the credit. 

 

Yes it's reasonable and appropriate that Musk and his companies pay taxes relative to their consumption of things provided by local, state and federal governments......... if there was a way to accurately calculate such a number. But that becomes problematic when you start factoring in things like:

 

How long roads......... for example........ actually last......... and how little (proportionately) any one company's cars and trucks will actually spend on them. 

 

And if you wanted to do the same for that "taxpayer-funded" DARPA invention?

 

Musk and all his companies combined........... might owe maybe 15 cents a year, based on their proportional use of that invention/asset! 

 

---------------

 

Personally, I think the fact that Elon Musk was able to find a way to be much more successful utilizing tools and technologies that nearly everyone had access to, just like he did............. is NOT a reason to punish and penalize him with exorbitant taxes! 

 

If Elon Musk had had exclusive access to these "taxpayer-funded" technologies, that would be one thing. That would be different. 

 

But he didn't. 

 

He just used imagination and ingenuity......... and no small amount of time, energy, effort and money.......... to find ways to use them BETTER! 

 

---------------

 

"Could Musk have done it without DARPA preceding him?" is a fair question.

 

A far better question think, though, is: 

 

Could DARPA have ever accomplished what Elon Musk has accomplished? 

 

My guess is............ not in a million years! ????????????

 

Cheers! 

Get a handful of ‘entrepreneurs’ together, plonk them down in sub-Sahara Africa, or some such place lacking infrastructure, regulation and a functional legal system. 
 

See how they get on.

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

As was pointed out in the article, the numbers would have to be hugely off to qualify to be an MAE.  So that's a really big and unlikely "if". And the SEC is not going to "join the fray" just on the say so of Elon Musk.  And your point about the CEO revealing "the true nature of the fake accounts" assumes that he would be hiding something. Ya got any evidence for that?

 

 As for "it's only an opinion" It's an opinion that is widely shared by legal experts based on overwhelming legal precedent. You'll be hard put to find any experts that say differently. So, sure, anything is possible with the right arguments if there are right arguments to be found. But this isn't magic. There isn't some magical "abracadabra" that will melt the heart of a judge or jury. If it goes to court, the trial will take place in the State of Delaware under Delaware state law. There are reasons that corporations choose to base themselves in the tiny state of Delaware.  And none of them are about making it more difficult for them to win court cases. "Anything is possible" is the epitome of a Hail Mary argument. Impossible to refute, but no reason to be taken seriously.

.

There is one significant error in my post above. Under Delaware Law, the verdicts at corporate trials are decided by a presiding judge. So this is further bad news for Musk since a judge is far less likely than a jury to be persuaded by proofs that twitter undercounted bots since twitter routinely offered a disclaimer as the accuracy of its estimates. A judge will be familiar with the technicalities of corporate law as it is established in Delaware.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Sure there is. 

 

When one person is effectively paying taxes equivalent to 100,000 people......... that's a problem. 

 

If the government paid its bills with percentags and not dollars, then everyone paying the same percentage might be okay. 

 

But the government DOESN'T pay its bills with percentages. It pays its bills with DOLLARS. And if one person is having to provide a hugely disproportionate quantity of those DOLLARS......... that's a problem.

 

But that's what happens when everyone pays the same percentage.

 

---------------

 

As far as I've ever been able to determine, there are only TWO WAYS in which Americans' tax burden can be divvied up FAIRLY............ neither of which are practical; neither of which can work! ????????????

 

The first is......... 

 

* Take the amount of money the government spends each year......… and divide it by the population (334 million, approxately). Every person benefits in some ways from what the government provides, therefore, everyone pays EQUALLY. 

 

According to USAfacts.Org, that was $20,634 per person, for FY2021. That's your share! 

 

If you're paying less than that, someone else is paying part of YOUR share! 

 

(of course, this can never happen. It would simply be financially untenable for MOST Americans! But what could be more FAIR than everyone paying the same price to ride on the same train?) 

 

The second is......... 

 

Figure out what each and every person's actual consumption of government goods and services is........... and require them to pay THAT! 

 

Thus, a homebody who seldom leaves the house except to go to work and some minimal necessary shopping.......... is going to use a whole lot less of the things the goverent spends money on......... than the playboy billionaire with his multiple homes, cars, jets, and, perhaps, required police services. 

 

Tally up exactly what each individual's burden on the government actually is......... and make them pay THAT! 

 

After all, what could be more FAIR than to pay for what you use? 

 

If your mansions are in places where an enemy is more likely to strike........... New York City or Washington DC, for example........... then proportionately more military money must be used to keep your mansions safe! Pay up!

 

Of course, the guy in Winnemucca, NV, is still benefiting from America's military security, so he's still going to have to pay SOMETHING. But, because he consumes so much less, it won't be nearly as onerous as the playboy's! 

 

(Of course, it should be pretty obvious why THIS can't work, either. We simply have no way to accurately and fairly calculate these things!) 

 

But that's it! 

 

I've never been able to come up with any other method that DESERVES to be called "fair!" 

 

Just taking more of someone's money simply because they HAVE more? ......... Well, that certainly ain't it! Indeed, I can't think of any other situation in America where people would think that's okay.......... except in discussions on TAXES! 

 

" Sorry sir, you'll have to pay $2 more for your milk because you've got $50 more in your wallet than this fella!"

 

????????????

 

------------------

 

Two ways, that's it! 

 

* Everyone pays their own 1/334,000,000th share, or...... 

 

* Everyone pays according to their own actual consumption. 

 

That's it! 

 

--------------------

 

But everyone paying the same percentage? Well, that's certainly EASY........... but it's wickedly UNFAIR! 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

A complete misrepresentation of progressive taxation.

 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

how is that right wing racist? please explain, I am curious ????

 

kettle? ????

 

Racist because you mentioned it in a sentence that suggested that he this CEO might attempt to conceal information. Yoking his ethnicity and possibly unethical activity together in one sentence can't help but be viewed as casting aspersion on his background. Unless, of course, you can offer an alternative explanation of why it was relevant to mention this person's country of origin.

[GrandPapillon]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

There is one significant error in my post above. Under Delaware Law, the verdicts at corporate trials are decided by a presiding judge. So this is further bad news for Musk since a judge is far less likely than a jury to be persuaded by proofs that twitter undercounted bots since twitter routinely offered a disclaimer as the accuracy of its estimates. A judge will be familiar with the technicalities of corporate law as it is established in Delaware.

the problem is going to be Federal, not local. That's what you keep missing but never mind ????

 

if I am not mistaken, jury are only for criminal courts in the US, with some special cases for civil cases awarding compensation. I will let you hurry up and check out that little detail for us all here ????

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by GrandPapillon

[GrandPapillon]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Why did you feel it was necessary to state his place birth ?

who said it was necessary? ????

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Y'know, when a municipality lays down waterpipes across the breadth of the city, some of that water will get used to make coffee in coffee houses, bread in bakeries, fill fish tanks in pet stores, and water plants in garden nurseries. 

 

But that doesn't mean the municipality deserves to be treated as a partner........... when they didn't build the building or the coffee house business; never roasted or ground any coffee; never waited on customers, stocked the shelves, cleaned the equipment and dishes; never created and paid for advertising; never put forward any investment for equipment and fixtures. 

 

Yes, the municipality deserves a tiny, tiny bit of credit for bringing water and sewers to that block. But it was tons and tons and TONS of work and imagination and ingenuity and time and money and effort....... by people who have nothing to do with the municipality......... that turned that coffee house into a thriving business. 

 

So too the contribution of DARPA to the internet, relatively speaking.

 

There are literally tens of thousands of successful businesses on the internet......... maybe hundreds of thousands......... that created 99.999% of their success all on their own......... with DARPA perhaps deserving the remaining 0.001% of the credit. 

 

Yes it's reasonable and appropriate that Musk and his companies pay taxes relative to their consumption of things provided by local, state and federal governments......... if there was a way to accurately calculate such a number. But that becomes problematic when you start factoring in things like:

 

How long roads......... for example........ actually last......... and how little (proportionately) any one company's cars and trucks will actually spend on them. 

 

And if you wanted to do the same for that "taxpayer-funded" DARPA invention?

 

Musk and all his companies combined........... might owe maybe 15 cents a year, based on their proportional use of that invention/asset! 

 

---------------

 

Personally, I think the fact that Elon Musk was able to find a way to be much more successful utilizing tools and technologies that nearly everyone had access to, just like he did............. is NOT a reason to punish and penalize him with exorbitant taxes! 

 

If Elon Musk had had exclusive access to these "taxpayer-funded" technologies, that would be one thing. That would be different. 

 

But he didn't. 

 

He just used imagination and ingenuity......... and no small amount of time, energy, effort and money.......... to find ways to use them BETTER! 

 

---------------

 

"Could Musk have done it without DARPA preceding him?" is a fair question.

 

A far better question think, though, is: 

 

Could DARPA have ever accomplished what Elon Musk has accomplished? 

 

My guess is............ not in a million years! ????????????

 

Cheers! 

Could Elon Mush have ever accomplished what he did without DARPA?  My guess is not in a million years!

 

How many coffee shops succeed without government provide utilities, roads, security, etc?  None than I know of.  The coffee shop owner deserves credit and profit for putting taxpayer funded resources to productive use, but also has an obligation to pay a fair share of taxes.

 

Elon Musk has benefited in a hugely disproportionate manner from the human, physical, and technological infrastructure paid for by taxpayers.  People who have benefited disproportionately from the taxpayer provided environment they operate in should pay disproportionately to maintain that environment; at the very least they should pay the same percentage as others.

 

Would Elon Musk have done as well if he were born into a poor agrarian society?  Probably not, he probably would have been another struggling subsistence farmer. 

 

Would Elon Musk have done as well without the developments of DARPA, the enormous sums of research and development in aerospace paid for by taxpayers, without the roads paid for by taxpayers for his cars (a huge subsidy for the car industry in general), without the educated workforce provided by taxpayer funded schools, etc?  No, of course not.

 

Elon Musk and others are fabulously rich because of the environment that taxpayers have provided for them to operate in.  At the very least they should be paying the same percentage in taxes as others in society.

Edited May 20, 2022 by heybruce

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Sure there is. 

 

When one person is effectively paying taxes equivalent to 100,000 people......... that's a problem. 

 

If the government paid its bills with percentags and not dollars, then everyone paying the same percentage might be okay. 

 

But the government DOESN'T pay its bills with percentages. It pays its bills with DOLLARS. And if one person is having to provide a hugely disproportionate quantity of those DOLLARS......... that's a problem.

 

But that's what happens when everyone pays the same percentage.

 

---------------

 

As far as I've ever been able to determine, there are only TWO WAYS in which Americans' tax burden can be divvied up FAIRLY............ neither of which are practical; neither of which can work! ????????????

 

The first is......... 

 

* Take the amount of money the government spends each year......… and divide it by the population (334 million, approxately). Every person benefits in some ways from what the government provides, therefore, everyone pays EQUALLY. 

 

According to USAfacts.Org, that was $20,634 per person, for FY2021. That's your share! 

 

If you're paying less than that, someone else is paying part of YOUR share! 

 

(of course, this can never happen. It would simply be financially untenable for MOST Americans! But what could be more FAIR than everyone paying the same price to ride on the same train?) 

 

The second is......... 

 

Figure out what each and every person's actual consumption of government goods and services is........... and require them to pay THAT! 

 

Thus, a homebody who seldom leaves the house except to go to work and some minimal necessary shopping.......... is going to use a whole lot less of the things the goverent spends money on......... than the playboy billionaire with his multiple homes, cars, jets, and, perhaps, required police services. 

 

Tally up exactly what each individual's burden on the government actually is......... and make them pay THAT! 

 

After all, what could be more FAIR than to pay for what you use? 

 

If your mansions are in places where an enemy is more likely to strike........... New York City or Washington DC, for example........... then proportionately more military money must be used to keep your mansions safe! Pay up!

 

Of course, the guy in Winnemucca, NV, is still benefiting from America's military security, so he's still going to have to pay SOMETHING. But, because he consumes so much less, it won't be nearly as onerous as the playboy's! 

 

(Of course, it should be pretty obvious why THIS can't work, either. We simply have no way to accurately and fairly calculate these things!) 

 

But that's it! 

 

I've never been able to come up with any other method that DESERVES to be called "fair!" 

 

Just taking more of someone's money simply because they HAVE more? ......... Well, that certainly ain't it! Indeed, I can't think of any other situation in America where people would think that's okay.......... except in discussions on TAXES! 

 

" Sorry sir, you'll have to pay $2 more for your milk because you've got $50 more in your wallet than this fella!"

 

????????????

 

------------------

 

Two ways, that's it! 

 

* Everyone pays their own 1/334,000,000th share, or...... 

 

* Everyone pays according to their own actual consumption. 

 

That's it! 

 

--------------------

 

But everyone paying the same percentage? Well, that's certainly EASY........... but it's wickedly UNFAIR! 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

Using your second example, Elon Musk's space business should pay a proportionate share of the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money invested in the development of the aerospace industry.  I agree.  Elon Musk should pay much more in taxes, possibly more than he's worth.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Sure there is. 

 

When one person is effectively paying taxes equivalent to 100,000 people......... that's a problem. 

 

If the government paid its bills with percentags and not dollars, then everyone paying the same percentage might be okay. 

 

But the government DOESN'T pay its bills with percentages. It pays its bills with DOLLARS. And if one person is having to provide a hugely disproportionate quantity of those DOLLARS......... that's a problem.

 

But that's what happens when everyone pays the same percentage.

 

---------------

 

As far as I've ever been able to determine, there are only TWO WAYS in which Americans' tax burden can be divvied up FAIRLY............ neither of which are practical; neither of which can work! ????????????

 

The first is......... 

 

* Take the amount of money the government spends each year......… and divide it by the population (334 million, approxately). Every person benefits in some ways from what the government provides, therefore, everyone pays EQUALLY. 

 

According to USAfacts.Org, that was $20,634 per person, for FY2021. That's your share! 

 

If you're paying less than that, someone else is paying part of YOUR share! 

 

(of course, this can never happen. It would simply be financially untenable for MOST Americans! But what could be more FAIR than everyone paying the same price to ride on the same train?) 

 

The second is......... 

 

Figure out what each and every person's actual consumption of government goods and services is........... and require them to pay THAT! 

 

Thus, a homebody who seldom leaves the house except to go to work and some minimal necessary shopping.......... is going to use a whole lot less of the things the goverent spends money on......... than the playboy billionaire with his multiple homes, cars, jets, and, perhaps, required police services. 

 

Tally up exactly what each individual's burden on the government actually is......... and make them pay THAT! 

 

After all, what could be more FAIR than to pay for what you use? 

 

If your mansions are in places where an enemy is more likely to strike........... New York City or Washington DC, for example........... then proportionately more military money must be used to keep your mansions safe! Pay up!

 

Of course, the guy in Winnemucca, NV, is still benefiting from America's military security, so he's still going to have to pay SOMETHING. But, because he consumes so much less, it won't be nearly as onerous as the playboy's! 

 

(Of course, it should be pretty obvious why THIS can't work, either. We simply have no way to accurately and fairly calculate these things!) 

 

But that's it! 

 

I've never been able to come up with any other method that DESERVES to be called "fair!" 

 

Just taking more of someone's money simply because they HAVE more? ......... Well, that certainly ain't it! Indeed, I can't think of any other situation in America where people would think that's okay.......... except in discussions on TAXES! 

 

" Sorry sir, you'll have to pay $2 more for your milk because you've got $50 more in your wallet than this fella!"

 

????????????

 

------------------

 

Two ways, that's it! 

 

* Everyone pays their own 1/334,000,000th share, or...... 

 

* Everyone pays according to their own actual consumption. 

 

That's it! 

 

--------------------

 

But everyone paying the same percentage? Well, that's certainly EASY........... but it's wickedly UNFAIR! 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

There is a variation on your two methods that may be practical and would be much fairer--Have people pay taxes in proportion to their net worth.

 

It's simple.  Determine the total financial needs of the government and the total private net wealth/assets of the people in the country.  Then make everyone pay in proportion to their net worth. 

 

Using the numbers of $7 trillion for the federal budget and $100 trillion for net assets (approximately correct), everyone would pay 7% of their net wealth in taxes.  A person with $1 million in assets would pay $70,000, a person with $1 billion would pay $70 million, and a person with $100 billion would pay $7 billion.  Poor people with no assets would pay nothing.

 

Since assets require the use of government resources in some form or another (regulations and enforcement for financial assets, utilities for manufacturing, distribution means for retail services, etc.) and assets benefit from rule of law and defense spending in proportion to the magnitude of the assets, people will be paying their fair share.

 

I'm sure you like this variation on your idea.

Edited May 20, 2022 by heybruce

[bendejo]

When he speaks of himself as champion of free speech he is really saying that he should be the one controlling the levers of censorship.  He could give a rat's tail about the freedoms of others.  And this Twitter stuff is really about getting back at those who dare to criticize him.  It's like the way in the US the people who rabidly go on about freedom and the Constitution are against abortion (hey, what about freedom of choice?) and how those who disagree with them should be killed. 

In the past few weeks EM's comments have been getting political, and MAGA leaning.  A naturalized citizen throwing in with a movement that is proudly anti-immigrant?  Has boyo forgotten who/what he is?

 

 

[shdmn]

23 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

"Panic Mode"?

 

Histrionic much?

 

 

Most of the posts here seem calm, well thought-out, rational.

 

Yours? Reek of PANIC.

 

Just stop digging, and stop relaying the right-wing neo-fascist talking points.

 

 

 

 

 

He posted some article from nypost.  Those people are not even worth responding to. ????

 

That same 'news' site posted some BS about how tRump advised Elon on the Twitter deal.  Elon tweeted that the story was a complete fabrication and he has not talked to cheeto benito at all about anything.

 

The people who read that stuff and watch Fox are sad pathetic creatures living in their own imaginary worlds

Edited May 21, 2022 by shdmn

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

if I am not mistaken, jury are only for criminal courts in the US, with some special cases for civil cases awarding compensation. I will let you hurry up and check out that little detail for us all here ????

Glad to oblige:

 

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ylr72&div=53&id=&page=