jxidjhdhdhdhfhf

I don't get it. Do you think developers will experience some AI related job losses and finance people will not?

Reminder that bacon is already a known carcinogen for those worrying about artificial sweeteners but happily eating processed meats.

Choosing to have a kid is a choice of the parents, not the child. You're forgetting the child is also a person, one as deserving of the same civil rights as anyone else, at least where we can give them without causing harm to the child.

It's cheaper to have no disability access than to have it. It's probably cheaper to exclude poor, black people from your property.

Too bad, when you live in a society, you have to deal with other people living in the society including those under the age of 18.

I tend to think of travel as status posturing. The thing about status posturing is people don't want others to think they are status posturing. So, they make up other reasons for why they do something. For example, you need the huge pickup truck because you haul a lot of stuff once a year. Travel is similar. People like to claim they need their status posturing to be well rounded individuals.

Now at the end of the day people have disposable income and have to spend it somewhere, but I don't think travel should be given the special regard that it is currently.

Not a fan of the whiny tone. It's not anyone else's job to make you feel welcome. The same goes for immigrants anywhere, including America.

It's not more dangerous to play outside (actually it's safer), it just seems that way because of media sensationalism.

There were lots of TV ads directed at children. Arguably they were net negatives for society.

Was TV really any better though? You seem to be saying "we survived so they will too" but just because you survived an environment with TV, doesn't mean that TV was harmless.

What learning would require a tablet? If you want them to read something online, print it out. If you are teaching them a skill that requires a computer, that would be best done on a desktop machine in a dedicated computer room.

I would personally just get a bucket of paint and paint right over it. If you want to remember what it looks like, take a photo. Graffiti is supposed to be semi-temporary anyways.

You just described the entire economy. It's worked out pretty well actually. All spending is someone else's income, which can then be taxed again.

So don't save up $2 million for inheritance... No one is forcing you to do that.

Not to mention the increased taxes will be paid back, at least to some extent, in enhanced services. Maybe your kids could get a free education and free healthcare instead of $1M each in inheritance.

Or instead of increased services, we could tax other things less such as the income of living people. I'd much rather have dead people, who have zero use for the money getting taxed more and living people, who actually can make use of the money getting taxed less.

What is a really good reason that has motivated you? Can you give some examples? This is the place where I get stuck.

It's not clear to me there needs to be any exemption at all on inheritances. It should all be taxable income IMO. Poor people having their inheritances taxed will just get it back later in enhanced government benefits. More in fact since rich people have way larger inheritances to tax.

Another huge loophole is charitable deductions. There's absolutely no reason the government needs to be helping fund individual charity decisions (for anyone, poor or rich). You have billionaires avoiding the majority of taxes they owe by giving money away to their pet charity causes.

To me, this is kind of like saying "this $5000 Armani suit feels the same as a $500 suit from Men's Warehouse". They're only the same if you ignore the details, like living in one of the areas of the country with the nicest weather and best access to nature (California) or having access to the best culture, best food and most opportunity to make it big (New York).

Lol exactly. "Maintenance" can then be funded and estimated separately.

I think there's definitely a difference between working in some capacity and working full time. The research they've done on unemployed people says that 1 day per week of work is enough for them to gain all the mental health benfits of work.

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20190619/how-much-w...

It's like people worried about "chemicals" in food. Ok, which chemicals are you actually worried about?

The opposite is often the case too though. There are plenty of fat, beer-bellied dudes who think they aren't obese because they have some muscle.

Might be more useful to say how you do spend your time. Keep track for a couple weeks. Are you spending a lot of time on your phone? Download a tracker app to see how much time you spend on various apps or websites.

The average company wouldn't even give you a room with a door that closes.

Poor people are still having a lot of kids, it's the developed world that has a problem. I think the decline is birthrate is much better explained by material wealth and the corresponding education of women that goes along with it as causes of the drop.

If you don't have childcare, you can't go to the office at all though.

There's also recycling. It's possible to recycle the lithium in batteries for example but not possible to recycle all of the oil that is pulled out of the ground to produce gasoline.

It's a tax. That money is spent and gone. You no longer have any claim on it. If you live long enough, you may get to claim tax money paid by other workers, but that has nothing to do with what you were taxed.

You're only looking at that from a consumer perspective. On the other side of that transaction is a person earning only $5 for several hours of labor minus the cost of materials.

Realistically that's what needs to happen. Wealth needs to be redistributed from the old rich to the old poor. Social Security is meant to be security for the old poor, not a middle class pension.

Copyrights should expire at creator's death IMO.