I use mine a lot, but it’s even more frequent that I think “damn, my leatherman is in my backpack and I could really use it right now”

I’d probably die in a car crash pretty quickly

Historically the most popular political idea is “all your problems are the fault of those guys over there”.

Not so much the case anymore. 10 years ago yeah, but recently most cards won’t charge back interest. Interest going forward is horrendous though, so yes definitely have a plan to pay it off beforehand.

I would think, “the accuracy of that statement depends on your voting record”.

It’s usually 12 months or longer.

I believe it was something like you do the check pulls against one card and use it to pay off another

This is completely legal and very common, in the US at least, I don’t know why people think it’s some shady thing. It’s called a balance transfer and credit card companies actually advertise low teaser rates for doing it. They want you to do it.

First, I would SLEEP SO FUCKING MUCH

Why not? No child needs wealth conferred on them.

The whole point is I’m saying it SHOULD be illegal. We don’t have nobility in this country. No one should be incredibly rich and powerful purely because of the accident of their birth.

Inheritance in wrong hands is just pocket money that will be spent in short time.

Then they won’t miss it when it gets taxed away.

Morning people are in a fucking religious cult. They believe anyone who doesn’t want to wake up as early as them is defective.

to-do.txt

Becoming wealthy and staying wealthy is hard.

I mean first of all, huge disagree. When your money is making money above and beyond what you need to survive, it’s actually difficult to stop being wealthy even when you make giving away your wealth your entire job. Power of compounding.

Also

inheritance doesn’t mean anything really

is an incredibly out of touch statement.

Second, if the rule applies to all, it would leave a lot of children without the base which their parents worked their whole life for, as they would probably not afford to pay tax on a house they would inherit.

I think children should be grateful they receive anything at all. This is a nation of rugged individualism, no one should start with a leg up like a free house.

First - wealthy people just move their wealth overseas

Well that’s tax evasion and illegal, but you still make a good point. This is the main reason no one is seriously attempting to tax rich people more - they’ll just move their money out of the country. Legality be damned.

disabled people or people temporary without jobs

We’re not giving them millions of dollars, just enough for survival (and not even that sometimes).

you prevent new people from possibly starting businesses because why should they, if it will basically be taken away from them?

We’re only talking about inheritance specifically, not taking money from wealthy people in general. Something like a super high inheritance tax.

If you have an extra 20% productivity to give, you’re probably not a great worker to start with. And even so, it’s rare to keep sn employee 3 years anymore.

There is no level of productivity boost that can make up for months of actual absence lol

Paternity leave helps employers attract talent; in all other ways it does not help them at all.

What’s wrong with taking from them? It’s not like they earned it.

I’m not convinced

The data is pretty conclusive.

Likewise, the influence of rent control on new residential construction and supply seems to be similar. Approximately two-thirds of the studies indicate a negative impact, while several studies discover no statistically significant effect whatsoever.

From a comprehensive survey of all existing studies on the effects of rent control. However, they do note:

Furthermore, if private construction experiences a decline, governmental intervention becomes a possibility. This could involve the construction of public housing or financial support for private investors engaged in social housing development. Consequently, the total number of completed dwellings can remain steady or even rise, potentially leading to a misinterpretation of rent control’s impact as beneficial.

Which afaik is the case in the UK. Government is compensating for the negative effects of rent control by spending taxpayer money on it.

Firstly, I think your focus on housing is too narrow to solve wealth inequality.

Second, if landlords are handed a $100 monthly tax bill they tend to increase their tenants rent by $100 a month.

Third, you ignore the effects this will have on new home construction, which will be SEVERE.

Fourth, and this is a minor thing, I think when discussing housing policy we should always be trying to disincentivize suburban sprawl snd incentivize density. Having more people own single family homes is not necessarily a great thing, maybe better than having corporations rent them out but not as good as having more dense walkable transit filled urban cores. I’d even go so far as to say that while having people own condos is best, having people rent apartments is still better (on a large scale) than having people own single family houses.

We make withholding contributions to our annual tax bill every paycheck, we can force wealthy people to make a large number of withholding contributions spaced throughout the year to avoid market effects from it happening all at once. If they over-contributed, they get a refund, and if they under-contributed, they owe a bill and possibly a penalty.