x last night
I posted this earlier today in the tech lemmy instance, but, they have no sense of humor and deleted it. I'm trying here.
I posted this earlier today in the tech lemmy instance, but, they have no sense of humor and deleted it. I'm trying here.
Musk has burnt through $44 Billion. I'm sure even the government could have spent it better than he has
They would have spent it on bombs and missiles, not on useful stuff.
Hey they would have bought a kid or two a book. Maybe.
But bombs and missiles "Made in USA", that's how the trickle down works, right? 💦🚽
On a wrench.
You overestimate governments. But a blind dog could've spent it much better.
... he said in a post on a worldwide network whose creation the US government originally funded.
Not for the purpose of giving it to the people.
They only said the government were capable of doing it, not that they would be motivated by pure benevolence
To be fair, of the 44B, they'd use 30b to blow up children's hospitals, give 13b to some rich fucks, 800m would disappear and the rest would fund something nice
Have you ever looked at US federal spending? 27% goes to healthcare, 21% goes to social security, 13% to income security, 13% to defense, then the rest is split between education, veterans benefits, transportation, and regional development/other.
I know people like to meme the government spending, but the majority goes to healthcare, elder care, and veterans.
I can't wait until Snowden resurfaces and shows us how much of that 27% healthcare actually goes to healthcare and how much is skimmed to line people's pockets.
The US healthcare industry massively over charges for everything, so they are skimming in plain sight.
Doesn't change that only 13% goes to the DoD, where a fraction may be used to blow up hospitals. Not 66% as the previous poster implied.
Yeah that also sounds likely
Plenty of government employees wanted that very thing.
Including that Al Gore guy.
Via the same agency that created Agent Orange.
Fritz Haber invented synthetic fertilizers he also developed chemical weapons during ww1. Whats your fucking point? Lots of good things were created by terrible people and lots of terrible things were created by good people.
Hello, you called?
Who is this blind dog, and how can we make him president?! 🐕🦺
They spelled ‘eat’ wrong.
AXE THE RICH
Yes! Bombard them with body spray!!
Dear god its a highschool boys locker room!
My noses! They die!
Bro how many noses do you have
None anymore
Damn big L
Ze goggles, zey do nothink!
Delete the rich
Extinguish the rich
Yeah but then you couldn't get that timely 'X' in there.
Let me introduce you to him: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/1700891 🤣
We hungry!
https://piped.video/watch?v=o-0lAhnoDlU
Execute?
The techie guys are also the ones with verified Twitter accounts and Elon Musk balls on their mouths in my experience so i can't say i'm surprised if they deleted your post :/
A lot of us sadly are, but there are also ones like me with a strong affinity for open source and such. And we collectively join in the Elon hate.
Looks fake. Probably why. Lighting is all fucked. Ground not consistent with massive sign lit up. 🚩
we can't effort the rich anymore.
But, doesn't light always go only up?
Yeah, otherwise it would be called "heavy".
Yeah, it’s hot. Heat rises. Therefore, vis a vis, indubitably, light goes up.
Smog. You get used to it after a while.
I can tell by the pixels
They spelled EAT wrong.
The joke is that Twitter put a giant X Sign on the roof of their building so the edit needs to include an X
Nope, T A X is an acceptable alternative spelling for E A T.
Nah, for them, taxes would just be another small hurdle to squash
Make it a tiered hurdle: top tier, above $1M, 98% income taxes.
¿Por que no los dos?
Taxing the rich, and then eating them. What could possibly go wrong?
Honestly, just taxing the rich is one of the most milquetoast and obvious takes ever. Should not even be radical imo since it just makes sense
And yet here we are.
BuT iT dOeSnT wOrK lIkE tHaT
A resident should display a glowing Mastodon logo through their window
The band, or the social network?
Why not both?
The social network is actually named after the band so... technical it's always both. 🐘
🤯 TIL
Why not just project it onto the side of the building?
I agree with the idea, but where is the humor in this?
That's X sign on Twitter building in the end of tax
Ah that explains everything. Thank you.
The communism.
Taxes are capitalist
Ahh yes, taxes which have existed since the first and most basic state came into being -- millennia before capitalism, even at its most primitive, was conceived of or practiced -- are capitalist.
It's kind of incredible how teenagers on the internet use the word "capitalism" the same way boomers on facebook use "communism."
My bad, just meant to argue that taxes weren't explicitly communist. I don't have any strong feelings for or agains t communism yet, maybe I'll look into it later. Just hate to see people use thr name of an economic system as a debate ender, although I suppose I did the same. Guess it's just the debater in me wishing we could have actual structural arguments on thr internet instead of throwing slang words around.
Socialism is the thing you're looking for. And in my opinion, market socialism.
Oh yes, an ideology defined by private ownership and small government intervention is also somehow responsible for the basis of government intervention - taxes.
They don't actually believe in small government intervention at all - they want the goverment to enforce private property rights and then just tax a little back, below the profits from owning that property.
The big lie is that private property is natural, and thus its enforcement is small.
(Edit: clarity)
A government which only enforces private property rights is still significantly smaller than most alternatives.
Enforcement of private property rights is a part of virtually all governments, and then you pile all other stuff on top of that hence making the government bigger.
And ofc the taxes will be below the profits, no sane person would make any investments in anything if it was above the profits.
Edit: and to add, many hardcore capitalists, like minarchists, libertarians, or anarcho capitalists, propose that you don't even need a government to enforce private property rights. They'd rather solve that issue privately.
But I'm comparing against socialism, not against most capitalist countries. We don't need to encourage investment where the factors of production are owned by the workers themselves.
The ancaps illustrate my point - it's absolute monarchy that they falsely claim is anarchy.
I don't think I follow your reasoning tbh. What exactly are you comparing? You said that capitalists favour intervening governments, which is simply not true. Not in any general sense anyway.
Anarcho capitalism is probably as far into anarchy you can go. They want to completely abolish the state and enforce property rights privately.
Or are you saying that such a society will fall into some kind of feudalism? At the core of anarcho capitalism is the NAP which is not really compatible with feudalism. In feudalism you have a hierarchy not based on voluntarism, and that would therefore not be anarcho capitalist.
Do you imply that we need a strong state with a monopoly on violence to keep us in check, otherwise we would descend into chaos? Thats a pretty bleak and pessimistic view of mankind.
I'm comparing existing states to socialism - that's shared ownership of the factors of production, not simply when the government does things.
Private property fails the NAP because it's a person taking away natural resources from everyone else, without their consent, and reimbursing them for less than its value.
Anarcho-capitalism is fuedalism, not just something that will become feudalism in the future. The king is a "property owner enforcing his rights privately" with a lot of tenants. FYI other anarchists generally don't consider ancaps to even be anarchist at all for this reason.
I agree that a monopoly on force is a bad idea. We've tried "vanguard states" already and they don't actually wither away at all. I'd prefer to see housing cooperatives and (as yet nonexistent) p2p prediction markets fill the power vacuum left by land lords. I also generally agree with ancaps that neighborhoods ought to be protected by armed people who live there; my main disagreement is who rightfully owns that neighborhood in the first place.
I do agree to an extent. Anarcho capitalism is perhaps more of a theoretical idea rather than a practical social structure. And it is not possible to uphold the NAP in an absolute sense – it is inevitable to cause aggression in some ways, through e.g. pollution or whatever. And private ownership of natural resources is, let's say tricky.
I am not an anarcho capitalist myself, but I believe society and interactions should be voluntary. But it is difficult to find a practical social structure where that is possible. I am actually rather pessimistic about people tbh, and our track record shows how bad we are at getting along and leaving people be.
(If you'll forgive me going on a tangent...)
Pollution is why I mentioned p2p prediction markets! It's an externalities problem, and any market-based solution to externalities requires the Coase Theorem - which in turn requires extremely low transaction costs.
Basically I think we should all buy climate insurance, and those insurers will have a strong incentive to pay for defense from polluters. But that sort of market will step on a few toes and needs to resist censorship. And it needs to be very very low friction.
That sounds like an interesting idea. So this is a blockchain based idea?
How is it implemented? Is there a payout depending on how the predictions turned out to incentivise positive change?
It would definitely fit that instance too, it's also some quality shitpost and could fit in political communities as well so kind of a universal one if you ask me!
Why did they delete it? Is it even a real picture?
You’re looking at it. It’s as real as this text you’re reading!
All I see is blonde, brunette, red head...
Truly, an unexpected Matrix reference.
I guess some users of tech lemmy might have felt concerned by this.
Ok, how much though?
I'm thinking from the neck up?
"Make the rich pay" is smarter.
There’s no “x” in your sentence.
The sign was a huge, dumb “x”, using that X, the new, ah, forget it.
I don't care. Tax the rich is stupid.
Teach me more things! so I's can be a smart likes you
Well, look who can't adapt to new info, or just info at this point....
Tax the bidens :) or not those rich? The other rich!!!
This is not the gotcha you think it is. Yes, tax the Bidens.
Some people woukd disagree, look at other comments :)
I'm looking at them buddy. No one is buying into your bait. They agree with your assertion that we should tax people as rich as Biden. I think you're talking about the guy who was trying to show you that if you have a problem with Biden's millions, you should be even more troubled by the billionaire it seems you're defending.
People aren't obsessed with Biden. Biden has done some good while in office - a lot more than people were expecting. The best thing he's done by far is not being Donald Trump. We all know why we voted for him, and it's not his progressive policies.
"Biden has done somw good" hhahhhahaha
Why is it chuckle fucks like you suddenly lose all ability to read context clues when it's an idea you don't like?
Its funny how the rich are the ones "tax the rich" ans point to people who have more money than they do
Tax all of them! What part about it do you not understand? Do we need to spell it out for you? WTF is wrong with you?
Take the rich peoples money and give it to the poor! And when they are the new rich, take their money and give it to the new poor!
Correct. Except, the poor won't be the new rich because there are more poor than rich. Many, many more. Hence the idea that the way things currently are is unfair.
Take the money from the rich, give it to the poor and we will have something slightly closer to economic equality.
What is junior high like these days?
Said no one, ever.
I don't even think the Bidens are that rich by politician standards, but we should tax them just like everyone else.
Oh, sorry. Dont tax the Bidens
You have negative reading comprehension. You see meaning that is the exact opposite of what is written because it supports your bad viewpoint.
If you think ~10M is the dangerous kind of rich then yeah, most people realize that 100M+ or even 1B+ is the people that are actually severely dangerous. Especially the people that end up with that number somehow after several bankruptcies...