Many issues with that also. First - wealthy people just move their wealth overseas, as most wealth is actually not in physical goods but freely movable virtual papers and money.

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.

And third, inheritance doesn’t mean anything really, but how someone can manage it. Being wealthy is easy. Becoming wealthy and staying wealthy is hard. Plenty of kids who destroyed empires their parents built. If the kids can manage the wealth and build upon it, why punish them for having good parents?

Because it’s immoral and it would be dual standards unless you take away from all who “didn’t earn it”, like disabled people or people temporary without jobs. Those also get money for basically existing.

There’s also the problem of incentives, if you encourage taking from those who have, you prevent new people from possibly starting businesses because why should they, if it will basically be taken away from them? Better to be jobless or do some minimal non-useful work and get money for nothing from the wealthy. You just move the problem from A to B but you didn’t solve it.

Sorry, the post was a bit just following OPs thoughts and it was a bit hard to collect all the points. It seemed to me as if they focused on property wealth.

Wealth inequality can be only tackled by moving away from capitalism to some other system. Capital = wealth. It’s the same thing. You simply live in a system whose goal is to use wealth to aquire more wealth. And it’s compounding.

Most wealth lies in stocks, and you can’t tax people for holding stocks as this would break the system. You need to pay real money tax on potential money that you could have if you sell stocks. And you need to also calculate that stock prices can fall at any moment and what then? You paid taxes on money that you lost?

What COULD be the solution - why are people who have tons of money, able to go to the bank and lend tons of money basically for free, compared to poor people who don’t have enough, and then also need to pay back more?

I think this would be the key, you have on one hand double up, and on the other side double down. But, if people who don’t know how to manage money can easily get it and fail to pay it back… what then…?

The system rewards those who invest their rewards, and punishes those who consume their rewards.

And how would you takle that problem that isn’t plain “take from them and give to me”? Everyone of them had someone in the past do the hard work, and still today, you have people who succeed through hard work. Why not be the first of his line to build up wealth?

Interfering with the housing market in that way will make companies build and sell less houses, because the business becomes more risky, so by keeping the supply low and demand high, they can make sure they will always be able to both sell the home in the required time frame, and with the profits they want. Or in the end, higher prices for consumers. Good luck with that.

As for rich people in general, most of them, AFAIK, actually built their wealth from ground up. Ofc their kids will inherit it without absolutely doing nothing, but that is nobodys fault, the parents want the best for their kids, and the kids would be stupid to go work some shitty job if they can afford a jump-start by for ex. buying and renting properties with parent’s money. In the end, someone did work hard to make it happen, over multiple generations sometimes.

Also, most people are simply financially not literate. They have no idea how the financial system works. If I buy a stock today, and its value increases by $10 in a day, and I sell it, I made $10 out of thin air. Try to explain to people how money gets created “seemingly out of thin air”. Most people will simply ignore it even though stocks are the one and only thing that rich people have that makes them rich. Everything else they own, like houses, yachts, cars etc… they are running costs that actually make you poorer. People who understand money make money. People who can pay people who understand money to manage their money make money.

You can read a list of news article titles and not go deep.

Yes, Settings > Preferences > Other and there under Public Timelines you can filter which languages you wish to see.

Mastodon, as I can filter any content with specific words, and tbh it’s the best thing ever.

You would need to do some research yourself, I am no expert in this… ogg/vorbis was an option for me, and it checks my requirements (high quality, acceptable size, supported on android).

I would just say “fuck”, because I don’t think there is any AI that can do that.

I am literally downloading my entire Spotify collection as high quality OGG Vorbis files. Ready for the future, however it will look like.

Good times create weak people. Weak people create bad times. Bad times create strong people. Strong people create good times.

Repeat.

Otherwise - because you are being absolutely nuke-blasted by negative news all around the world. If you wen’t offline for a month, you wouldn’t see any issue at all.

But, DeepSeek wouldn’t be able to make money without using OpenAI.

Same what OpenAI said about copyright material they used to train ChatGPT.

The time of rational discussions is over. THAT is what needs to be accepted. Being rational was tried and it failed, thats why we are here where we are in the first place, remember? If being rational was of any help, we wouldn’t have the problem that we had today. We rationally told we can’t accept so many migrants, provide them with basic stuff, without it affecting ourselves. But no, nobody listened. Why would anyone wanna be rational now? We tried and it failed. Nothing else left but to be emotional.

Of course it’s not rational, why would you expect it to be at this point? When an issue starts, at that point, before it escalates, thats when people still have rational thoughts and think through things. But now, where the economy is falling apart, people are losing jobs and homes, or barely making it through, why would you expect anyone to be rational and not emotional? How do you expect such people, who contributed their whole life to the states welfare system when it was working, to now at this point be left in the dark while some random people, who just got here, never put a penny into that system, get everything on a silver pladder? Of course people will get emotional, and in this case, the emotion is hate, remorse, fear, disappointment.

I really don’t know what would else you expect from people in this desperate situation.

Well, I partly agree. Collective freedom does come before personal freedom. But, not everyone hates just because of the “being”. For ex. a lot of refugees in Germany are hated not because they are from middle east, not because they are islamic, but for the sole reason that they are abusing the welfare system. They get free social apartments with monthly allowance that is higher than some peoples pensions, from which they still need to pay their apartment. It’s not hate because of what they are, but because of what they do. And that is ok, because we hate pedophiles not because of the person, but because what they do or did in the past. Also, there is no freedom from feeling offended and unwelcome. It is a feedback. A boy can feel unwelcome in a girls locker room, no problem there really. Feeling unwelcome probably has some reason behind it. You either should not be there, or you should be or not be doing something.

It IS censorship and they should stop saying it isn’t, but they should clearly say “we will censor X because Y” and be transparent about it. Censorship where the majority of population agrees with it is still censorship, but approved and accepted for the greater good.

Now, the question is what does “hateful” mean? And where does “hateful” start and begin? Is saying “I hate my neighbour” and “I hate Nazis” the same? Is “I hate gay people” and “I hate Manchester United” the same? Why not focus on violence instead of hate. We should have the freedom to hate (hear me out…) but in the end it is a feeling and a preference and no censorship will change that. What should be prevented at all costs however, is violent content. People can love or hate whoever, but they shouldn’t be allowed to call upon any type of violence towards them.

Someone hating someone doesn’t change a thing, but someone calling for attacks against someone - this is a whole new dimension and deserves total censorship.

Well how do you expect people to both make money and provide stuff for free?

Guess we should all be unemployed not to be oppressed.

What immense power? You can hand in your resignation and all that power, money and piles of gold suddenly mean nothing when you don’t have the basic component that makes the gears turn. Workers are also not oppressed, because workers can quit if it’s not fitting for them. Staying there by free will to take the shit in is not oppression… We already have very mobile workforce that basically does job jumping every 2 years, and people are having less and less issue with simply quitting. So what is exactly the problem for the worker, expect that they want to work in a company, but on THEIR terms, and not the company terms?

Not defending Amazon in any way, but I think the playing field is quite level right now between the employer and employees. Both are free to make decisions, both are free to work together or part ways. So I am not seeing an issue other than the worker wanting to control how the company is run.