This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Elai
Pages: 1 ... 91011 1213 ... 633
301
« on: October 06, 2018, 12:40:21 PM »
It's tempting, but I dunno if I want to pay for it
you should so that we get a sequel. you want the sequel.
302
« on: October 06, 2018, 12:39:37 PM »
I’ll watch it for free
No go pay for it so we get the sequel
303
« on: October 06, 2018, 12:43:24 AM »
it looks fucking hilarious so i'll have to see it at some point
dude i burst out laughing at least 5 or 6 times its a parody movie, no one can convince me its not
304
« on: October 06, 2018, 12:38:08 AM »
This movie is a complete 0/10 yet it might be one of my favourite movies ever
305
« on: October 06, 2018, 12:16:22 AM »
This is what Sam Raimi would have wanted
306
« on: October 06, 2018, 12:14:36 AM »
This is not a drill
Movie of the year 2018
307
« on: October 04, 2018, 04:14:30 PM »
I don't have much hope for the story (Spider-gwen is really dumb, Miles Morales sucks as a character) but visually it just looks incredible.
Hopefully this movie does something interesting with his character, but it'll be beautiful no matter what.
308
« on: October 04, 2018, 04:12:46 PM »
alright so it looks pretty good but why the choppy animation
íf youre trying to emulate 2D it only looks irritating
it's called framerate modulation and it looks great
309
« on: October 04, 2018, 01:36:10 PM »
Being bad with finances is a factor whether you want to believe it or not. I have two coworkers that get paid the same, and one has a house and property, a vehicle, a smartphone, and disposable income while the other one would say he can't afford any of that, yet every morning he spends ~$20+ on lottery tickets. I'm not trying to generalize everyone, which is why I said it's my subjective experience, but it's a factor. Doing the exact opposite and saying they're all victims isn't any more enlightened of an opinion. I'm not doing that. But being bad with finances isn't as significant a factor as you think. I've heard most people that win big on the lottery blow through it and end up poor again. Don't see what that has to do with anything. This is just straight up false. Where are you getting this information? Post-depression, the average american work week consisted of about 35 hours a week up until recently. All of these countries have a far smaller average income than the United States. I'm not too familiar with these countries, so I might be missing something, but working fewer hours just to get less income doesn't seem like a solution.
Things also cost a lot less in these countries. The solution here is for the government to subisdise the cost of living which they can only do through taxation. You don't make as much in Portugal, but you also don't need as much.
310
« on: October 04, 2018, 01:06:13 PM »
I would argue the problem is our materialistic society, that encourages people to make poor financial decisions. Yes, capitalism encourages this, but renovating our entire economic system seems a little drastic. In my subjective experience, the people with less disposable income are often the ones spending more on shit like lottery tickets, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. "Everyone less successful than me is either stupid or lazy." Dude cmon characterising poor people as being poor because of their own decisions is just bullshit and demonstrates a complete lack of experience on your part. I also don't blame people for dreaming of winning the lottery. Most do, not because they want to be rich (most of them say they'd still work, and whether you think they would or not is irrelevant) but because they want to get above water and not be stressed out all the time about making ends meet. The stress also goes into how much our societies decide to drink and abuse substances. "I have one day off a week, I'm going to get as fucked up as possible and try to enjoy the miniscule amount of time I have to myself before I have to go back to my shitty job." There is no way to change this while still being a capitalist country. There are ways to combat it though (like what I'm suggesting), and I'm not really saying we should change it; I'm just making sure you understand the reality of capitalism. Obviously subjective, but I agree people should have a choice, which I believe they do. The average American work week is 47 hours. Accounting for sleep, you get more hours to yourself than work. It's not enough to realistically balance family life, mental health and physical health. 47 hours a week is more than 8 hours a day if you work Monday to Friday. Most humans should only be awake 16 hours a day. If you work 9-10 hours per day, you have six hours to balance your diet, your family life and your own sanity. I don't know how you don't see the problem here. Historically people have never worked this much before. I'm not sure how anyone can defend what is pretty much straight-up slavery. All I was trying to point out was that the problems you're trying to fix are far more prevalent in the systems you're proposing we move towards. So what, we just do nothing? No, we emulate societies where it does work. Judging by Fedorekd's posts, Europe doesn't seem to have this all figured out either.
That's because the UK is just a slightly better version of America and tries to emulate it too much. Portugal, Spain, France, Germany... these countries aren't perfect but they certainly have a far less depressed society and a much larger emphasis on worker's rights and the separation person from job.
311
« on: October 04, 2018, 12:04:04 PM »
wow these are some pretty confrontational posts for someone displaying no understanding of this topic whatsoever
First of all the "90% tax rate during the 40s-50s" is misleading at best. I'm pretty sure this has only come up recently because Bernie wanted to pretend like his tax plan wouldn't have been the highest in American history (it would have). Back then, there used to be so many deductions and loopholes that it's not even worth comparing them to taxes today.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ I never said I was an expert, I asked people to change my mind. I remember hearing about it on Bill Maher's show years before Bernie, but fair enough. The tax rate is lower now, and people are still finding loopholes to get away with not paying the taxes they should. I see this first hand all the time. This idea that you have to slave away for 60 hours a week just to make pennies more has no basis in reality. This is something I see every day. It's consistent with almost everyone I speak with. Basically everybody that's made it to "the top" had to invest in their future and take heavy risks. No they didn't spend 40 hours a week on a factory line like some people have to, but they gained skills that are more profitable. By being immoral and taking advantage of other people, yeah. You can't get rich without stealing from your workers (charging more for a product than you paid your workers to create it.) Maybe a factory worker shouldn't be "rich," (no one can be rich without making others poorer) but no citizen should have to sacrifice one major aspect of their life just to make ends meet. The major aspects being: family, mental health, and physical health. You can't do that if you're working 12 hours days. If this is really such a problem, maybe you'd prefer a socialist paradise like China where there is no work/life balance, just work, because everybody lives in fear of being replaced.
"Go live somewhere else you fucking commie" No actually, I'd like to live in a world where people get 3 days off a week, a month vacation off a year, leave at 4:30 every day and actually get to see their families and loved ones on a consistent basis. This is not unrealistic, because (most of) Canada, Europe and other developed parts of the world are like this. Not just the socially democratic parts of Europe, either.
312
« on: October 04, 2018, 01:59:23 AM »
elon musk, jeff bezos, richard branson, and the rest should all be thrown into a giant blender
It's like I always say: In a rich man's house, there is no place to spit but his face.
I think this is the first time you've said this 
I say it a good amount because its hilarious and Diogenes was fucking based but we dont really talk politics that much
313
« on: October 04, 2018, 12:33:50 AM »
It's hard for me to believe it's all a hoax to make me a drone for the rest of my life when I've seen plenty of people in my small time in the work force reach it themselves. It's easy for me to believe it's just a giant pipe dream, but it's also easy to see my friends reach management within six months of being in the same job I'm in with the only difference between me and them is that they're in a different location.
I'm not a workaholic because I'm trying to avoid my problems; quite the opposite, but I'm not going to get into the discussion over the morality (or lack thereof) of why I want to move up, it's neither here nor there. But the fact of the matter is, I've seen plenty of people I directly work with, who are my equals move up the ladder. You say it doesn't exist, but I'm literally looking right at it on a daily basis. You're not getting this. Not everyone can move up the ladder. There are only so many manager positions. Those positions often don't pay much more. Coorportions will not be there for you; they will throw you under the bus. You probably don't know anyone you consider an equal making a comfortable living. You probably don't know anyone making a comfortable living with good work/life balance. Additionally, I'm only suggesting a 95% tax on people 0.001%ers. The multimillionaires. A 30% tax rate on 100-150k earners, 40% on 150-250k etc. It's really not that unreasonable.
314
« on: October 04, 2018, 12:14:06 AM »
Says the guy that thinks taxing people for 95% of their income is a good idea.
You're so naive it's unbelievable.
It's demonstrably a good idea. There is no "working up the corporate ladder." There's taking care of yourself by fighting the company at every turn; the battle between the corporation and the individual must always be on the individual's terms because if it isn't, the corporation will steamroll you. There's one person you should work hard in this life: yourself. If you're working 60 hours a week in the hopes that someome will eventually notice your hard work, wake up and smell the flowers. Furthermore, this idea that you have to work long and hard when you're young is absolute bullshit when you consider we've been fed this line for 30 years and we have people in their fourties still working as long and as hard for barely enough to get by. If you are working that much, your mental health, your physical health or your relationship with your friends and family are strained, all of which you have a responsibility to take care of as a member of society. I get that you're this socially awkward weirdo but running away from your problems by being a "workaholic" isn't going to work out in your benefit. Better to realise it now than wake up in 10 years with nothing to show for it.
315
« on: October 03, 2018, 11:40:40 PM »
>Hey work towards this goal in life so that you'll make more money and be happier
>But when you reach that goal we're going to tax the shit out of your income so you're doing more work/more responsibility so you'll have practically the same amount you had before
I guess it's a good thing I want to climb the corporate ladder at work for reasons other than more money.
You're so naive it's unbelievable.
316
« on: October 03, 2018, 08:20:10 PM »
Who’s going to want to be a doctor when they’re going to get robbed if they do
try reading
317
« on: October 03, 2018, 08:04:36 PM »
Maybe my layman brain just can't comprehend it, but taking away 90% of a person's wealth leaves them an unquestionably lower amount of money to invest with. Yes, that individual would have less to invest, but the overall amount of investors would increase because of the wealth distribution. A large middle class can invest sizably in industries they believe to be humanistic. It's democratic in the purest form. If someone earns 100 million dollars in a single year and plans to invest around 10% of that, they would be left with very little comparatively, unless they receive a very significant tax break for investing. I wouldn't be opposed to a significant tax break on investors or even a government subsidy program that allows you to invest more depending on how much taxes you've been paying to begin with, but I'm no economist so I couldn't really tell you the best way to go about it. Also like I said the individual has less to invest but more individuals can realistically invest. The commercial world allows for individuals to have a greater impact on society through innovation in a shorter amount of time than government does. You know what's even slower than slow change? No change, which is what you'll get 9/10 times with the 1%ers. It's not ideal all but, you're right, I'm not looking at this idealistically. I'm just more of a "here and now" kind of person. Tax the wealthiest people more, sure. I just don't think it should be 90%. It doesn't seem like we're gonna be able to agree on that, I guess.
I wasn't always for a 90% tax on the upper income earners until I learned that's what the States did after WW2 to the great benefit of the country. Even under Reagan taxes were up to 60%.
318
« on: October 03, 2018, 07:17:09 PM »
How does it not stifle the ability to invest if the vast majority of money that they would have to invest is taken from them? It doesn't remove their ability to, but it drastically reduces the amount of money they have to. Because investors will always invest the amount of money they deem acceptable depending on the investment prospects. Mark Cuban of Shark Tank never shuts up about how taxes have literally nothing to do with his investment ability; they don't even cross his mind when potentially making an investment. And there are (should be) tax breaks for those who actually invest their money. I don't see how you could have such a caricature of an idea of a rich person without being a little more distrusting of bureaucrats. I'm not so naive as to think politics is working as it should, but at least there's an air of legitimacy to the system and we, the people, have some say as to what our governments actually spend the money on. Politicians are forced to work for the people, there is no such incentive for billionaires. Relying on a few benevolent kings to fix our system is absolutely not the answer. I can't help but find it a little irritating that your problem with the government is that it spends too much on war, so your solution is to trust a few billionaires who made their wealth exploiting other people to take care of you. It's just absolutely absurd. Tax the rich, get out of debt, take care of your citizens. That's what the agenda should be, and if it isn't, vote in the people most likely to get you as close to that goal as possible. I will grant you that America is an absolute social shithole right now that can't agree on anything so the prospect of actual change seems impossible. That's why I'm trying to keep the subject hypothetical rather than "Well look how the government spends its money right now!" Well no, we're talking idealistically, because that's how rational thought works: you figure out the ideal scenario, and then work to make it reality.
319
« on: October 03, 2018, 05:54:57 PM »
elon musk, jeff bezos, richard branson, and the rest should all be thrown into a giant blender
It's like I always say: In a rich man's house, there is no place to spit but his face.
320
« on: October 03, 2018, 05:50:32 PM »
250k isn’t rich that’s barely getting close to upper middle class
I'm not sure how it is in America (probably worse) but 250k is not "middle class." Maybe not "rich" but definitely upper class.
Upper class = rich
that's not how i see it.
rich is like more than a million a year.
So, upper upper class?
I just think there should definitely be a distinction between upper class and rich. I'm not saying we tax the fuck out of upper class workers like doctors, tradesmen, etc (though still up to 50% depending on how much more than 250k they're pulling). These people work for their money without taking advantage of a less empowered workforce and are compensated fairly for work that requires arduous education. You can't really get rich without taking advantage of someone else. That's who I'm trying to tax.
321
« on: October 03, 2018, 05:47:28 PM »
nnovation is what guarantees that quality of life continues to improve into the future. Yeah, they should do more to provide their employees, but that doesn't mean their ability to invest should be stifled. Taxing million/billionaires up to 90% does not stifle their ability to invest in innovation (see: 1950's). Firstly, these corporate types NEVER end up paying what they're supposed to. They pay geeks who know the tax law inside-and-out a couple thousand dollars to find them loopholes so that they don't have to give up what they owe; additionally, there are (should be, if you don't have it in America) government incentive programs that give breaks to those who invest in innovation. Btw amazon is actually increasing its minimum wage to 15 dollars here in the US. Apparently Bezos is trying to set a precedent for other corporations to follow.
That's cool. It shouldn't be up to the individual to decide who gets to live comfortably.
322
« on: October 03, 2018, 04:46:54 PM »
My government spends the vast majority of its collected taxes on its over-bloated defense budget so it can continue dropping bombs on the third world, and executing regime changes. I don't have much faith in the state to use the taxes it collects to most effectively benefit the citizens it governs. That's a problem too but you can cross that bridge when you get there. I also wouldn't presume that there are no wealthy people that have a desire to innovate, and help funnel money back down to the lower rungs of society. The state is a collective of people that follows a system that takes a long time to change. A single billionaire can fund innovation much faster and with more freedom than the state can. Space X is a good example of that. Elon Musk infamously underpays his employees, same with the other guy who owns Amazon. Innovation isn't as important as guaranteeing a high quality of life for a country's citizens.
323
« on: October 03, 2018, 04:15:40 PM »
250k isn’t rich that’s barely getting close to upper middle class
I'm not sure how it is in America (probably worse) but 250k is not "middle class." Maybe not "rich" but definitely upper class.
Upper class = rich
that's not how i see it. rich is like more than a million a year.
324
« on: October 03, 2018, 03:47:31 PM »
There should be a maximum wage of 100 million dollars, and if you can't live off that you should be sent to some kind of reeducation camp. Barring that, decapitation should do the trick.
325
« on: October 03, 2018, 03:46:40 PM »
I would support higher taxes for the top rungs of society if they were better spent, but I don't trust my government to not funnel nearly all of that money into the military industrial complex. Not 95% though. I still think innovation should still be allowed through private investment, and not just through government funding/subsidy. At least the government will spend the money on something that benefits its country, even if you disagree with it. Rich fucks will just buy more cars and shit. Also people were taxed up to 90% post WW2 as far as I know and that was the most prosperous time for America, economically.
326
« on: October 03, 2018, 03:44:58 PM »
Fuck everyone that is more successful than me
Pretty much everyone is more successful than you.
327
« on: October 03, 2018, 03:44:25 PM »
250k isn’t rich that’s barely getting close to upper middle class
I'm not sure how it is in America (probably worse) but 250k is not "middle class." Maybe not "rich" but definitely upper class.
328
« on: October 03, 2018, 08:00:08 AM »
Did you lose an argument in class or something
329
« on: October 03, 2018, 07:50:25 AM »
Taxes are a shit way of dealing with this. Most money will probably go directly into the pockets of waste-of-space politicians.
There should be direct contribution charges from the top 20% of earners.
They could literally pay for everyone's healthcare if they had a mandatory contribution charge of 30% of their earnings.
You mean like taxes
330
« on: October 03, 2018, 01:16:02 AM »
shouldn't taxed 50%
all the way up to 95% depending on how much more you make
you dont need more than 100k to live comfortably.
fuck the rich, fuck corporations and fuck capitalism. FUCK.
Pages: 1 ... 91011 1213 ... 633
|
Show Posts