ObjectivityIncarnate

There is no actual sentiment in the image, lol. On its face, it’s just stating two facts, not explicitly criticizing anything.

One could feasibly spread the exact same image as a positive thing, just depends on the audience.

$74,250 per employee

Hm, is this low for this line of work? Genuinely asking.

I dryly state of couple of plain facts, along with an analogy to clarify why using your own assets as collateral for a loan doesn’t make sense to be interpreted as ‘bypassing income tax’

You accuse me of being a bootlicker and put a ton of words in my mouth, assuming all sorts of nonsense about my values/positions because you apparently can’t handle the actual words you were presented with, and need a straw man to focus on instead

Why pretend you have any interest in genuine discourse when you act like this? It’s extremely obvious you have no desire to actually communicate. Go write a blog somewhere with the comments disabled if you can’t handle contradiction.

The problem lies in the top 1% using their shares of a company as their personal bank account.

There is no problem in someone using their own assets for their own benefit.

They can use these shares as collateral for a loan, bypassing all income tax.

There’s no income tax to “bypass”, because a loan isn’t income. You have to pay it back. Do you consider it “bypassing all income tax” when a homeowner takes out a Home Equity Loan too?

But collateral isn’t used as part of a transaction unless the loan is defaulted on.

let “unrealized gains” be taxed if they were ever used as collateral for a loan.

This simply makes no sense as a concept. Collateral is something that you tell the one you’re borrowing from “you can have this if I fail to pay my loan back”. If the loan is repaid, literally nothing happens to the collateral, and it plays zero part in the actual transaction. There is zero non-arbitrary reason to tax an asset just because it was used as collateral.

Also, all home equity loans would fall under this definition, as well.

The OP says “doesn’t work”, not ‘does work but not enough to satisfy an arbitrary threshold of “working for a living” so it doesn’t count’.

Nobody is saying owners do literally no labor

The OP literally says “doesn’t work”. Is “doesn’t work” not equivalent to “no labor”?

This is an interesting notion I hadn’t considered at all, you may be on to something there.

if the top 1% paid a fractionof the taxes they used to.

Could you give an example of a year in which the top 1% paid enough taxes to satisfy this condition?

I see what you mean now; your wording was ambiguous, specifically “do”.

anyone impersonating gestapo would post anything worse than they already do

sounds like you’re saying ‘would post anything worse than they already post’.

You haven’t been on the Internet very long, huh?

they’re platforming and subsequently legitimising them.

You could make that argument about them being allowed to have an account at all, but simply marking that account in such a way that informs the userbase that it’s not a troll/parody account or something, but the actual organization?

That doesn’t “platform” them, they’re already on the platform at the time this happened. And confirming that something asserted to be true, is in fact true, is a good thing.

It’s basically giving uncle Sam a list of targets to hit next.

How, exactly? Even if you use your real name as your username (which no one does), unless it’s very uncommon, that still won’t uniquely identify you.

Source?

What an idiotic article, from the headline down.

Locally replacing some letters with some other letters is going to make Microsoft’s CEO cry? Really?

Also, I’ll not be using Chrome, lol.

Yeah, that title’s last sentence is just a straight-up lie, lol

Smugness and delusion in equal proportion, it seems.

I’m simply not equivocating protecting one’s person and protecting one’s assets, since it makes no sense to equivocate them.

It’s seriously absurd to call that “bootlicking”, and you’re only calling it “euphemistic” because you failed to grasp what was a very simply-stated statement.

If you Internet Tough Guys were ever going to do anything, you would have already. This is nothing more than an impotent circlejerk, not to mention it also violates Rules 3 and 4 of this community.