myrmidex
@myrmidex@lemmy.nogods.be
- Comment on Not only do we humans have a common ancestor with primates still living in trees, we have a common ancestor with the trees. 1 day ago:
Amazing! :o
- Comment on Not only do we humans have a common ancestor with primates still living in trees, we have a common ancestor with the trees. 2 days ago:
TIL! Never heard that definition, thanks for that.
As for your point, it’s one I like to make sometimes, even though I’m fully in favor of veganism. One just cannot avoid trampling ants when walking. It’s such a fine line, even a paradox that keeps sucking me in. None of the extremes would work: eat everything vs eat nothing. The line drawn by society will always seem arbitrary, no matter where it’s at.
- Comment on Not only do we humans have a common ancestor with primates still living in trees, we have a common ancestor with the trees. 2 days ago:
Will future generations ever look at trees the way we look at primates today?
I imagine that would spell trouble for our eating habits.
- Comment on Poll suggests half of Canadians believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza 2 days ago:
“believe” makes it sound so subjective too. Gives me look-at-these-idiots vibes. Then again, I’m not a native speaker.
- Comment on The hidden time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs 3 days ago:
Wow, your post sent me down quite a rabbit hole. I suspected 94% was rather high, this page puts it into clearer perspective:
The “exceedingly high” part of this question most likely refers to the federal income tax’s “confiscatory” top rates coming out of World War II, which the Eisenhower Administration left in place into the 1960s. During the war, the top “marginal rate” was 94%, but 94% of what? Then as now, income tax rates moved up at distinct break points. In this made-up example, consider a 15% rate up to $25,000, 21% from $25,000 to $50,000, and 25% over $50,000. Those making $50,001 or more won’t pay a quarter of their total income, but rather 15% of the first $25,000, 21% of the next $25,000, and 25% of everything above $50K. That’s why the system is called progressive - the percentage rate progresses upward with income, but the higher percentage applies only to new (marginal) income above each break point. In 1944-45, “the most progressive tax years in U.S. history,” the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 ($2.4 million in 2009 dollars, given inflation).
Very few individuals encountered this top rate, however. The actual proportion of earnings citizens paid as income taxes in 1945 was far lower: for the poorest 20% of Americans, 1.7%; for the next 20%, 6.2%; for the middle quintile, 8.9%, for the upper-middle 20%, 10%; and for the wealthiest quintile, 20.7%.
Still, your point stands, taxes can be an instrument for (more) equality. The article I referred to (see another reply of mine for the full article) also gives an example of how taxes can be honest, and also gives an example of a time in Italy when they were.
- Comment on The hidden time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs 3 days ago:
How can it be broken if it works exactly as intended? Same goes for the tax laws in my shitstain country.
I read an article the other day how taxes are a way - and always have been - to redistribute from the poor to the rich. Sounds about right.