turnip

The law of rent.

You guys arent running your software off raspberry pi's with sdcards from the gas station?

My allowance is 5$ a month!

The system of insurance clearly raises prices to some euclidean point where its optimizing profits versus killing customers. How do you blame CEO instead of the government, who control the insurance company regulation, the hospitals, and the money printer?

If you're expecting the good hearts of the average CEO to prevent harm to your society you're a fewel.

Why are we doxxing these people, theyre running the same rat race as everyone else and doing a job the government we voted for is paying them to do. Is this supposed to be a petty revenge?

How about make a flag with 'is banned' that indicates it is banned, and then checking whether 'is banned' exists before allowing a post to be upvoted. You can use this for free Reddit, its a gift.

Ah interesting, thanks for the correction. Though since treasuries are paid by the government is it not then still a ponzi scheme, in the fact the bonds must be redeemed to pay for shortfalls, in which case the government must tax the existing population to pay for the redeemed bond to fund the old?

If we are looking at our existing scenario with the baby boomers I'd assume we must be close to being forced to liquidate, and taxes will rise on the young for the bond repayment?

If they allowed people to opt out would it not be the case that as people opt out you'd need to raise taxes on the young as more people opted out, since none of the money actually still exists, cascading into an insolvent system just like how a standard ponzi scheme unwinds?

What is their counter argument, would it increase the velocity of money and inflation, raising interest rates for everyone and inhibiting economic growth? Or would it be that we'd need to raise capital gains taxes, which would cause US investment to flee?

How should it be run, like a Keynesian, an MMT, a monetarist, something else?

Didnt Reagan under a conservative government allow the money to be spent, in order to pay for the debt left over after the great society act?

It therefore would now be a ponzi scheme, where past investors pay new investors, until the outflows outpace inflows and it fails.

Can someone explain to me why this is worse than Europes VAT tax?

According to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) study, any nation that switches to VAT initially feels the negative impact of reduced tax revenues. In the long run, however, the study concluded that VAT adoption has in the majority of cases increased government revenue and proved effective.

It seems to be proven quite effective, and Europe still has them, so why is Trumps worse/better than a VAT?

We need a dictator then?