I mean, people are definitely overreacting here. If this was just an accident—which, honestly, it looks like it was—there’s really no reason to go after someone. If they actually wanted to kill them, they wouldn’t have done it like this; they would’ve just dumped them out in some remote patch of woods off a backroad... and called it a day.
But I suppose it shows how much public opinion is shifting, and pretty drastically at that. Maybe that's a good thing. It might force that small group of people who actually enjoy hurting animals—you know, dumping them on the street or being cruel—to finally watch their step. It might make them realize they can't just do whatever they want without anyone giving a damn.
Human life is sacred. Human life holds more value than any animal. The life of a single serial killer outweighs the lives of every dog currently existing on this planet.
There are no moral dilemmas here. Animals are primitive tools and resources utilized by humans to satisfy their own needs—including the needs of lonely individuals seeking emotional companionship. To even attempt to draw a pseudo-nationalist parallel between the hierarchy of human value and our relationship with animals is nothing short of perverse. Human life is sacred. Human life holds more value than any animal. The life of a single serial killer outweighs the lives of every dog currently existing on this planet.
There are no moral dilemmas here. Animals are primitive tools and resources utilized by humans to satisfy their own needs—including the needs of lonely individuals seeking emotional companionship. To even attempt to draw a pseudo-nationalist parallel between the hierarchy of human value and our relationship with animals is nothing short of perverse. I guess we just fear being the ones on the receiving end of the violence. 😁
There isn't really a moral dilemma here. Animals are basically primitive tools and resources that humans use to get what they need. That includes those used by lonely people looking for some kind of emotional connection.
And sometimes, those "resources" were actually people...
If you follow that logic, everything becomes a "resource to satisfy needs": water, land, oil, air, oceans, rivers...
But it doesn't work like that. I've probably spent more money on a knee surgery for my cat than I have on any amount of UNICEF donations or hunger relief drives in my entire life. Does that mean my cat matters more than all those kids in Africa?
Yeah, it does. She’s my cat; she lives in my house. We’ll grieve when she passes, while every minute a child dies from hunger in Africa, hardly anyone cries outside of their immediate family. That’s just reality. Everything else is just empty rhetoric..
You care about what's close to you. If you're raising a pig just to slaughter it for dinner, you can't afford to have feelings about it. But if you have a pet just for companionship, you can.
(edit)
Carol Diaz said:Let’s talk about human life. If we follow your logic to its natural conclusion, why isn't a head of lettuce worth as much as a dog? You might argue it’s because dogs possess sentience while lettuce does not, but then again, there are plenty of people who insist plants feel pain. To me, both arguments are equally absurd; your stance is simply a byproduct of being biologically closer to a dog than a vegetable, making it naturally difficult for you to identify with a head of lettuce.
That isn't true. Dogs are inherently aggressive animals that survived in the wild by hunting in packs or scavenging carcasses. The fact that certain breeds today don't seem particularly aggressive toward humans is merely because we have selectively bred them just as we breed cattle to meet specific needs. We find ourselves circling back to the reality that they are tools utilized by the human species.
So, I assume people still living in the wild—say, deep in the Amazon—don't hunt other animals, they just live off fruit?
Besides, the whole idea of domestication isn't quite that simple...
William Nelson15 said:I recall reading that serfdom in America was officially abolished on April 25, 1848. But I find myself struggling to understand how we, as a people, allowed ourselves to effectively reinstate it in the 21st century—and not even in its original form, but in an even more predatory variation.
Back then, the situation was this: "...The tax obligations of peasant serfs varied from one landlord to another, yet their dues generally amounted to one-ninth of the land's produce given to the feudal lord and one-tenth given to the Church. All in all, the position of the peasant serf was by no means comfortable, as these dues had to be settled regardless of weather conditions, poor harvests, or the diseases that frequently devastated an already malnourished population." On top of that, the peasant was also required to pay state taxes, which could be both regular and extraordinary..." — copied from Wikipedia.
So, 10% to the church, 11% to the government, plus whatever emergency levies they decide to slap on us... That’s a minimum of 21% of one's income gone.
It seems to me that we are currently in the process of reverting back to being nothing more than serfs. With sales tax sitting at 23%, and once you factor in gross pay deductions, I’m looking at a 25% levy right off the top...
Historically, serfs worked land that belonged to the feudal lords. So, aren't we just moving backward? It makes me wonder just how much real estate today is actually owned by major banks or tied up in mortgages. Essentially, the church remains the church, and the feudal lords have simply been replaced by banks. And those banks will likely transfer ownership to foreign interests, or lease it back to modern American serfs under absolutely lethal terms.
I recently bought a small item online, and it ended up costing me $67 including shipping... On top of that, there were postal fees, customs, and God knows who else I had to pay $34! We are talking about a 50% markup in levies! I called several numbers at the post office, and every time I asked for the full name of the official I was speaking with, I was met with nothing but a first name, or worse, a dismissive "Oh, it doesn't matter, I'm just a clerk"... Well, there you have it, the lady clerk... Why is it that in this country, nobody wants to take any actual responsibility for what they do?
Where are we headed? I am profoundly disillusioned with this country.
That’s just wrong. Serfdom means being tied to the land. It means you're stuck to the plot you work; you can't move, you can't do anything... honestly, it isn't that different from slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
Also, serfdom wasn't actually abolished then. Joseph II ended it back in 1785, and Governor Jelačić just confirmed it because there was enough disagreement over whether it was officially gone or not. Even the Governor himself said the King had already abolished it and he was just providing confirmation.
Serfdom has nothing to do with taxes. Tax rates are more or less proportional to the services the government provides. For instance, taxes in the US are relatively low, but then you have to pay for healthcare, education, retirement... out of your own pocket, so you end up right back where you started.
To use your comparison, sales tax in Sweden, Denmark, Canada... is around 25%.
Payroll taxes and contributions are pretty much the same in America and Austria.
Social inequality is actually much lower in America than it is in Great Britain or the USA.
Douglas Reed3 said:I honestly believe most people don't even realize yet that we're headed toward an even larger wave of young people leaving the country...
Yeah, it's basically our endless curse. I guess a 65-year-old grandmother who barely speaks any English is going to have a much harder time moving abroad than some kid who just graduated college, doesn't have kids, and is bilingual.
The grandma stays on the taxpayer's tab—you know, pensions, healthcare—while the kid ends up contributing to the budget in Germany or wherever else he lands. 😢
On the flip side, we’ll probably just end up populated by retirees from England, Scandinavia, or Germany who think this place is "paradise" because they actually enjoy the warmth in December.
It’s essentially the Spanish model. Add in some olives, tourism, farming, and historical sites, and we’ll eventually land right where Spain is now: hovering on the edge of bankruptcy. Which, honestly, might be an improvement over where we are currently...
1. slashing costs (public sector employees) 2. cutting spending (pensions) 3. trimming expenses (healthcare and everything else) 4. restructuring debt 5. the IMF 6. introducing new taxes, maybe an estate tax or something
I mean, if anyone actually has a better idea, they should probably just email the Democratic Party—their contact info is right there on their website.
The real turning points were:
1. joining the European Union 2. making it easier for labor to move around (which basically meant Americans leaving) 3. opening up the real estate market (selling off property to foreigners, people moving in from abroad)
Everything else about printing money and whatnot... I guess it doesn't really matter.
From what I understand, there wasn't any oil in Mexico.
The real question is why France got so heavily involved in Libya. But I guess Gaddafi probably crossed too many lines—not that they don't have their own people on the ground to tell them. Plus, it’s always smart to stay on good terms with whoever ends up in power...
Don't forget: the USA only gets about 10-15% of its oil from the Middle East!
Most people are surprised to learn that the country from which the United States imports the greatest amount of oil is Canada.
Listen, if there's any way to make this happen, could we maybe get a banner or just a visible link posted somewhere with phone numbers and other ways to help folks over in Japan. This is an extreme situation. I think anyone who caught the football games today knows they all started with a minute of silence. I've added a link to my signature, so if someone has the permissions, maybe please put a notice up for the whole forum. I know the US isn't exactly swimming in extra cash right now, but I don't think that's really the point here...
They’re taking way more out of everyone's paychecks now. I mean, I'm sure people with disabilities get plenty of tax breaks and all, but... well, I'm not disabled, so I don't get much out of it.
If I were running things, I’d probably just be doing more of the same. There isn't really any way to pull off some massive, earth-shattering change right now.
They brought in some new faces to the Government, they looked at how much cash they were missing to cover salaries and pensions, and within a week or two, they just took out another loan. You can't really accomplish anything else on such short notice.
Popijač is basically just living proof that the Government actually cares about businesses and stuff like that.
Just wait, the Democratic Party will eventually take over, and it’ll be the exact same playbook. The only difference might be if the government issues a decree forcing every single company to hire two more people.
Things might pick up a bit this summer—hopefully it'll be better than last year (since Egypt and Tunisia are out of the running for tourists...)—and after that, we'll likely head straight into elections.
You could also just say: let the courts handle it, let the legal system decide. And sure, the courts should be the ones making those calls.
But we can't act like we shouldn't be debating this—whether there are mitigating circumstances, if the statute of limitations has run out, or even if it’s just timely to look into this now—in serious mainstream media outlets or among actual commentators. How are we supposed to have an actual discussion if the only thing we're allowed to write is "everything needs investigating" or "all crimes must be punished"?
Everyone agrees with that! So what’s left to talk about? Just repeating quotes from the news without actually adding any commentary?
In any case, I'm going to step back from any further debate on this topic and I won't be visiting this PDF anymore. Thanks ☕
So, why is our tax burden so heavy? Our Sales Tax sits at 23%, while there are a few spots in Europe—with Canada being one of them—that hit 25%. I guess it's just one of those things.
Besides that, Sunday. Sunday She went ahead and added a surcharge, even without the extra bit. I was looking at some recent data on income shifts, and it seems like things are moving around more than people realize. Apparently, there’s been this shift in how much people are actually pulling in after everything is settled. According to some reports, there's a noticeable gap when you look at what people take home versus what they earn on paper. It looks like the difference between gross and taxable income is becoming a bit more pronounced lately. I guess it just goes to show how much those various deductions can really eat into your paycheck. It’s a bit of a mess to parse through, honestly. Maybe it isn't as surprising as it sounds, but seeing the numbers laid out like that—especially with how much the cost of living is hitting everyone right now—it definitely makes you think twice about your monthly budget. Just one of those things, I suppose.
She couldn't really pull that off until she officially became a city—correct me if I'm wrong there—and honestly, she spent years grinding just to make that happen.
I can't access that specific link, but if you paste the text here, I'll get to work on it. Just send over the content and I'll handle the rewrite.
Our taxes are pretty high, I guess, but they aren't exactly the highest out there. It’s just how it works, maybe—if we want to actually fund the public sector. I mean, if we want decent schools, hospitals, free college for everyone, and roads that don't fall apart, we're going to have to pay for it somehow.
quietcyclist46 said:We’re dealing with a tax system that’s generally a total mess, but this whole local surcharge issue in Cleveland isn't one of those instances. For example, I find it incredibly stupid how places like a suburban US city or even some small towns near Chicago can just set their local income tax to 0%. They think they're being clever by attracting investors, but then the moment a road needs fixing, they turn around and demand federal handouts because they claim they have no funds. Personally, I wouldn't hand over a single cent from decentralized federal funds until these municipalities squeeze every possible dollar out of their own residents first. If there's still a deficit after that, then—and only then—can they come knocking. We asked for decentralization, and this is what we get? Fine. Let every local big shot figure out how to actually fund their own backyard instead of selling smoke and mirrors...
And when it comes to tax burdens, it's all relative. It feels massive for someone who just draws a standard paycheck. But if you’re living off interest, what does your actual tax burden look like?🙄 Or take the business owners: everyone buys everything through the company and claims the Sales Tax back (thank God they aren't trying to write off their groceries on the company card anytime soon). Most of them pay themselves the bare minimum as owners to dodge certain taxes, and then at the end of the year, they pull out the profit after just paying a 20% corporate tax. When you do the math, what’s the real effective tax rate there?🙄 And according to Milan Bandić, everyone is entitled to everything for free—especially now, if you look at the push for subsidized childcare based on household income.
God... around here, they only ever judge wealth by a salary, but once the cash flow dries up, they'll realize just how much trouble they're in when they're forced to face the reality of the taxman's shears...😁
I guess it’s because there really aren't that many actual business owners or CEOs out there. Most people just have a steady paycheck, the house they live in, maybe a small yard, or a little vineyard if they're lucky.
The whole Nationalist issue is "multi-dimensional." Just like the Nazi problem. Not everything they did was genocide, I guess. But at the end of the day, the bottom line is negative, and that’s really all there is to it.
Today, those Nationalist ideas are pretty much on the fringes. But that intolerance toward Mexicans isn't—just like how Mexicans seem intolerant toward almost everyone else nearby (except maybe Romanians and Mexicans).
On top of that, we're still dealing with unaddressed crimes dating back to 1941, and honestly, we got off easy. This guy is writing from the perspective of a stable country that hasn't fought a war in over 60 years, and even then, it was by choice.
Mexicans and Americans weren't exactly ready for democracy. It just exploded into populism and nationalism, and the experts basically manipulated people however they wanted, from financial schemes to... well, worse. Now, prisons in America are slowly starting to fill up, but in Mexico, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
John Ward96 said:Ugh... look, in my humble opinion, the world is neck-deep in it—I know, I know, a massive generalization—but this whole neoliberal setup is just making us sink faster every single day. You’ve got these political games being played by the ultra-wealthy who are basically obsessed with staying at the top... It's pretty simple: handing billions (and we're talking hundreds of billions here) to individuals who are pathologically fixated on hoarding their wealth? That can't end well. And I'm not saying the answer lies in Keynesianism either, because honestly, that's just another way to "keep things under control" and protect the elite. Can you really blame them for being too arrogant to embrace a different model? Let's not kid ourselves—even Keynes had some pretty dark, eugenicist views. That said, I don't think we should just spiral into despair. We have to fight for our own opportunities, our own competitiveness, and our quality of life as best as we can. At the same time, we should try to stay informed and nurture our own niche interests... because that's how we manage to be ourselves, even if just a little bit, and unplug from the matrix, or whatever you want to call it. Real change will happen when it happens. You can feel it in the air already—do you really think workers in China are going to spend eternity working for the dollar and committing suicide from sheer depression? Eventually, things are going to hit a "reset" button, and we'll see radical shifts on a global scale; I truly believe that. Until then: live, love, and try to stay open-minded, educated, and independent. 🙂
I can't wait. Maybe then our domestic products will actually be competitive again. 😁
I guess it’s just the way it goes—some have it, some don't, and a small group controls most of the wealth. As if that’s anything new? That’s basically how history has always played out. Maybe once upon a time everyone was supposedly equal, but now we have the ultra-wealthy. Though, honestly, even a regular person today lives better than kings did a couple hundred years ago...
Matthew Patel12 said:Maria Thomas48, I find myself repeating this point indefinitely, yet it seems to fall on deaf ears. The precise volume of non-credit money is always determined by a specific formula: dM = kM ; k = (supply - demand)/demand ; For instance, if supply equals 110 and demand equals 100. k = (110 - 100)/100 = 10/100 = 1/10 = 0.1 = 10%. If you issue 10% non-credit money, 5% will be directed toward boosting production, while the remaining 5% compensates for the deceleration in the velocity of money. Every single unit produced will be sold, including any unsold inventory that lingered simply because the circulation of money slowed down. This entire process occurs with prices remaining perfectly stable. In other words, there is no inflation.
Yeah, let’s put it this way. Suppose our central bank somehow prints a mountain of dollars. Or even better, an even bigger mountain of Euros. They just hand out $500 to every citizen, or they cut taxes, so everyone basically has more cash in their pocket than before.
Then everyone heads down to the store to pick up a new phone or a TV. That clears out the imported goods sitting in warehouses and keeps manufacturing in China humming along.
Meanwhile, since everyone suddenly has extra cash, more expensive houses start selling, and some people might decide to buy land they couldn't afford before... so, I guess prices start creeping up a bit.
In the end, everyone’s got their gadgets and cars, but housing and land prices go through the roof. That’s pretty much what happened here in America, except we didn't print the money; we borrowed it from overseas instead. It ends up being the same thing—the only difference is we actually have to pay it back.☕
It's pretty obvious that we live in small economies where the playbooks used by giant economies don't really apply. A dollar is a dollar, and a local currency is just a local currency. America runs the world, while a small nation in the US doesn't carry nearly the same weight, and its currency reflects that.
I guess people have always valued life—especially their own. But back in the day, death from natural causes was just way more common. Even now, you see instability, like wars and stuff, happening in places where mortality rates were already high. When you see everyone dying, maybe death doesn't feel quite as terrifying. We’ve turned death into this huge taboo today, even though we’re all headed there eventually. I suppose death was treated differently as a taboo in the past, too, just in a different way.
The whole human rights thing is pretty much tied to a history of oppression, specifically those religious conflicts we saw across North America. Tolerance emerged as a sort of remedy for all that constant fighting, and that's how the concept of rights started to grow. But those were originally political rights—things like freedom of speech or freedom of religion. They’re basically just rights that allow someone else to do their own thing without interference.
Anyway, things mostly only change in developed nations. In a lot of parts of the world, not much has shifted in the last century—maybe some cell phones or cars if people can afford them, I guess.
Abortion is an impossible moral knot because it’s so counterintuitive—you have one person (who isn't even visible without medical tools) inside another person. It kind of shows how superficial our moral systems are; they seem designed, or evolved, only to handle "normal" situations.
Maybe you should check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Hm, I guess I should weigh in too. Our core issue is just a weak economy. This country produces X goods and Y services annually; some gets exported or provided to foreigners to bring in the foreign currency needed to import stuff.
Then all of that gets distributed among the population—though obviously not equally: Ivanka Trump might get a little more, while an old lady like Mary gets a little less.
Raising the retirement age is probably a decent move, I suppose. There’s also this other measure they aren't talking about much. Basically, until now, unemployment benefits were tied to meeting the requirements for early retirement, and then they stopped. So people were essentially forced into retirement. Now, those benefits will continue until someone hits the criteria for regular retirement.
But what have we actually achieved? Person X works a few years longer, but then Person Y, who was supposed to take Person X's spot once they retired, ends up unemployed. The number of jobs is pretty much fixed. If Person Z is unemployed, they won't just take early retirement; they'll just collect unemployment. For any of this to make sense, that benefit really ought to be effectively smaller than a pension. And if Person Z does find a job, then someone else just becomes the unemployed one.
It feels like we're just pouring liquid from one canister to another: the amount of wine stays the same.
The government should probably reserve certain jobs for people who struggle to find work—like janitors in schools, clerks at service counters, or registry offices. Older folks could handle those. But then you end up with younger people being unemployed because those roles are taken.
It all boils down to the fact that there isn't enough industry or enough jobs to employ everyone.
And here's another thing: an unemployed 60-year-old lives off the state, but an unemployed 30-year-old will likely pack up and head to Austria or Germany, or maybe just work under the table. They'll pay taxes in another country, and our ratio of workers to retirees won't see a dime of it.
At this rate, we'll have no choice but to import retirees from wealthy nations. The central fund pays the pension, but the spending happens right here...
What could we even do for work? It seems like Mediterranean countries generally struggle. We could build a high-speed rail to Cleveland to haul containers for Canadians, but that's expensive. We could have done something with oil or gas with the Russians, but that went nowhere. We built a tram, but we can't sell it to anyone in the world. Are we all just going to farm tuna and manufacture screws?