djbebs

Copyright addresses no issue, it only causes them.

Pretty sure he was surprised no parents had blown one of the CPS people heads clean off in their front lawn when they came around to take their kids.

Sounds like they were stealing the customers deposits in order to provide those margin services then.

The content is uncopyrightable...

Obesity declining with income doesn't mean less calorically intense food is cheaper, it just means that higher income better educated people eat less calories.

It doesn’t reduce the time to enter the country anymore than blocking your front door unless you pay a toll reduces your time to exit the building.

Why should people not be able to sell what they own freely?

Are you banning the us flag?

There is nothing wrong with stock buybacks, and the only people negatively affected by them are the investors who own the business.

The government shouldn't be taking any side.

Theft is a crime regardless of what is being stolen, so is fraud.

No need for regulation to deal with this.

Depends on the price and conditions.

If FTX Terms of Service state that customer assets belong to the customer--not to FTX and those assets are used by FTX for any purpose that is a crime. Full stop.

If they would prefer to be unemployed, they can do it regardless of whether amazon retail exists or not

That's the same as in europe, except perhaps that in europe often specific unions are associated with specific political parties and act in conjunction.

As they should be.

Right now. Can you guarantee that will always be the case we'll into the future?

Bureaucrats going on a power trip thats about to get struck down by the courts.

They don't.

Small amounts let you gather up enough capital to reduce the negative impact of emergencies.

People who don't have thay ability make mistakes when emergencies inevitably come around.

Those 10$ a week after a year is enough to make up a small car repair, or problem with your paycheck.

Just last year I had an issue where my paycheck was short 1000$, because I wasn't spending everything as it came in, it wasn't a problem. I had a big enough buffer in income and emergency funds to make up for it.

If it had happened to my colleague who doesn't save up, he would have had to get a payday loan to put food on his families table.

That's how people stay poor.

Again, how does the existence of investors making money by providing housing prevent you from providing housing at below market cost?

You'll find that it doesn't. That any such restrictions are political decisions not investor decisions.

I'm not asking about tax brackets, I'm asking about percentage of tax burden.

Ie: out of all the income taxes paid, which proportion should be paid by the top 1% of people who make 20% of the income.

So your stance is that 20% of the income should bear 100% of the taxes?

So that 80% of the income should pay 0% of the taxes?

Did you miss the existence of decentralized exchanges?

And what about the top 1%?

Say they have 20% of the income, how much of the total tax burden should they bear?

20%?

25%?

30%?

What would you say is a fair amount to tax the rich?

Say the top 10% have 50% of the income. How much of a percent of the total tax burden should they be responsible for?

50%?

60%?

70%?

I didn't know the laws of physics was what kept the greenbelt around

You understand that investors are providing a needed service, right?

Their existence in the market doesn't stop you from existing.

Pretty much all of them.

Did you miss all the times people with mental illnesses have been discriminated and institutionalized?