I'm ok with this, but it's essentially just a step toward socialism which is the better option (but will never happen). Because all this will do is make CEOs less wealthy from the company itself. The investors still make tons more than the CEOs already and they don't do anything. You need to force revenue sharing essentially which is just socialism with extra steps. Cause CEOs will just end up investing in other companies and still be wealthy and get less compensation from the company itself.
No, for investors to grow revenue it would. Which was the whole initial concept of owning the means of production. You invest in what you thought would make money. You didn't invest because you wanted to take away employee's earned value to yourself. But that's what it came to. A majority of inflation is profit-driven related. Not government assistance related like many corporations and conservatives want you to think. Aside from that, any overt success is shared amongst everyone and no increase would be offset by normal COLA through the supply chain. People could survive and thrive without having to gut the value of employees or those in the supply chain. The only issue would be loss of business which is always a risk. But losses can be shared equally or if it's a large enough loss over a long enough time, it would require some folks to be laid off and depending on why, the employees could put the person running the business.
I know. But investors don't care. They're the root of the problem. CEOs are simply an employee of the company that ultimately represents the shareholders interest. Affecting their pay does not affect shareholder value that much. It just commoditizes the CEO position.
Which side of the fence are you putting store managers on? At a minimum that's $48 an hour (or a little over $3 for every $1 by the lower employee), but it's likely worse than that as often store managers work more than 40 hours a week and are not allowed overtime, so their pay doesn't change. Just saying I can't tell based on your wording if you think the gap between managers and employees is a problem, as I guess it's debatable, but definitely nowhere near the numbers above. So just wondering if you could clarify your point a bit.
A majority of wealth doesn't come from income so would never be touched by income tax. A "wealth tax" is just a broad term meaning that they should be taxed on the wealth fairly. Like capital gains for instance is a doozy. Way less taxation than what you likely pay (percentage wise obviously).
So "wealth tax" would include an income tax, capital tax, estate tax etc, all just at rates that are equivalent to how well the system treats them. They get a much larger advantage off the system that is set up than most others.
And the ultra wealthy don't even always have an income. You think Bezos has a salary right now that's significantly attributing to his wealth? Or Buffet or even Zuckerberg? I forget, his his salary still $1 a year? You want to tax only that?
But they're literally not counted under income tax law. So you're essentially arguing for the exact same thing if you want it to count under some sort of tax.
Edit: short term capital gains is the only one that counts as income. Long term is not and is severely under taxed compared to income tax. Like, I like your intentions, but you're severely fucking up the details and it details your entire motivation and intentions.
When your comment backed me up, I didn't find any reason to respond. Capital gains tax isn't income tax. You admitted it by typing it out. You're just showing that "wealth tax" is just a tax on various means of wealth. I don't know if English isn't your first language, but you're literally agreeing with everyone but saying you don't.
No one owes you anything, nor do they owe you a response. Especially when it didn't back up your own point.
Thanks for typing out a lot of words to say "you want taxes other than income."
You never even offered a rebuttal to what I said. You're a fucking joke.
Don't talk to me again. You're so unhinged you came back 6 days because someone decided you weren't worth the fucking time to respond to due to your shitty ass logic and poor understanding of language. So again, capital gains tax is not income tax. You agree. Thanks. You understand that "wealth tax" is just a broad term that means taxes on things other than their income (which in many cases is $1, such as Zuckerberg).
You're not a CPA. If you are? I feel bad for your clients as they're gonna get fucked in audits.
That's only short term capital gains tax. Long term capital gains is taxed at a different rate than short term. I literally already mentioned that.
Edit: to be clear, Schedule D would include sales of assets that aren't required to be reported on 1040. https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040gi you can follow the instructions there and specifically where it tells you how to choose different tax rates than, you know, the income tax rate.
the fact you even had to say "typically" means its a broad term that just means different things to different people. if someone wanted to tax unrealized gains specifically, they would say that. they didn't. they're essentially just saying they want wealthy people to pay taxes.
this has been repeatedly told to you. you even used a specific rate to describe income tax as being enough. that alone would have excluded your whole, now further expanded upon but originally excluded by definition, explanation.
this was also extremely clear from everything i said. multiple times. but obviously, like i said, multiple times, you're in agreement with me. you just have some hangup on the definition of an ambiguous word that the original user gave no further intent behind and just jumped to your own conclusions on nothing, despite being told, repeatedly.
do you understand now?
I'm done here. I can't believe you're arguing with someone who has repeated been on the same page as you. Nothing you've said is in disagreement with me (except my claim you're not a CPA). Its like you just want to hear yourself talk or "win" something. Especially after that childish rant about someone not responding to you on the internet. Honestly. You should be ashamed of that. I don't get it. Do you want the last word or not? It's behavior like that which makes me believe you aren't a CPA because you're not acting like a goddamn fucking adult.
So you don't get all stressed out or angry or need an extra call to your therapist, i'm not going to respond again, but I might downvote you just for fun. And honestly, why is an upvote without a comment ok but a downvote without a comment isn't? Someone can disagree with you and leave it at that. They don't owe you anything, you entitled ass.
A Jan. 6 defendant, in opening arguments at his trial before a jury on Wednesday, compared himself to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and said that he liked that members of Congress were fearing for their lives during the Capitol attack....
I found this after reading and responding to this post here about early Trek fans’ prejudicial negative reaction to TNG. One of my responses (see here) was to point out that any fans of the progressiveness of Trek ought to have been mindful of the room for improvement over TOS, with female representation being an obvious...
Boimler is ambitious but kind of clumsy and awkward and stickler for rules (despite the boimler rule). Mariner is basically Ferris Bueller with the mouth of a sailor until her friends/family are in danger and then she's MacGuyver/007. (I also just realized I'm dating myself a lot of those references and I hope they still work.) The show is definitely written by fans of star trek that also are comfortable enough to poke fun at the source material.
Edit: that's probably enough to enjoy it, but I haven't seen it yet so don't know if they reference any lower decks story arcs heavily.
Your closing suggestion doesn't actually affect the process. Admins still run the joint. The admin just needs to care. Admins can even make it invite only if they wanted. Do you have any source for this marketplace of instances?
Buying one instance doesn't change anything though. Instagram was the whole kit and caboodle. It made a difference. Buying one instance, even a large won't doesn't give the same leverage. Plus, it doesn't destroy competition or anything. It's not equivalent.
What services can they offer that aren't elsewhere? If it's unique, it won't actually be that effective. It can only be scoped to the instance.
Instagram isn't a comparison because it works entirely differently. By even saying "like Instagram" belies a lack of understanding of the topic.
It's true all instances are not equal. But your extension theory is not very strong. Nor is your instance-for-sale concept. They gain nothing from buying an instance. Users don't matter. They're just as reachable as another federated instance.
The admin was trying to get people to understand how federation works though. Most of my interactions are on other instances. That you're even discussing another instance is the admin's whole point of how your perspective is outdated. You don't need to join populated instances. You could literally setup your own and still access other people. You can actually reach more people from an unknown instance than very large ones. Many instances ban large ones due to large ones having less moderation. If you wanted to be real insidious, a corp could create its own instance and just spread posts/upvotes/etc elsewhere on other instances. As long as they don't push too hard, it would go unnoticed.
You're entirely misunderstanding the lemmy.ml admin. Sure people might flock to large instances out of instinct, but it's misguided. The admin was trying to show that user count isn't the metric you want to look at for an instance.
And thinking any single instance can sway the entire fediverse, whether they're "leaders" or not is naive. You'd need to buy the top 100 instances at once to force any actual change in the fediverse and those top 100 were more than likely formed to avoid consolidation like that. You're worried about something that is so insanely difficult to happen and would have such a low ROI compared to Instagram and acquisitions like it. It's literally being shown that it's cheaper for a corporation to create its own. That's what Threads is.
If you're doing it enough that others interfere? You're going to lose all value in your instance as users leave and go elsewhere. You just wasted money on something you could have accomplished for a lot less, (and at least when that fails, you can do it again elsewhere).
You're better off just creating your own instance and posting elsewhere and changing your domain when defederated too much. Much cheaper, more effective, and much more reach.
Edit: I'm really disliking that all these conspiracy theories are forcing me to think of much less expensive ways for corporations to exploit the fediverse. That it hasn't happened is likely a sign the fediverse just isn't a big enough target as a whole or simply that they'd have no way to track the effectiveness.
But those are unrelated. We're talking about admins not acting in the best interest of the users so they can pump up numbers and sell their instances. You're talking about related concepts, but different motivations and intentions.
I mean, Meta can extract from the fediverse already. Having a federated instance doesn't really change that. It doesn't provide them deeper access than before. Theyre either federating due to EU policies on interoperability or trying to position themselves as the best instance in regards to the fediverse. There's a lot of clamour as to how great the fediverse is for users, now they can say "choose us, we're fediverse." Other instances need to show them the benefit of other instances and point out that they can have all the "benefits of Threads" (really just benefits of fediverse) without all the disadvantages.
CEOs of top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms earn $601 for every $1 by worker, report finds ( www.theguardian.com )
These companies paid their employees a median wage of $31,672 in 2022, while their CEOs took home an average $15.3m
Jan. 6 defendant representing himself at trial compares himself to Brett Kavanaugh ( www.nbcnews.com )
A Jan. 6 defendant, in opening arguments at his trial before a jury on Wednesday, compared himself to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and said that he liked that members of Congress were fearing for their lives during the Capitol attack....
How Many Star Trek Episodes Pass the Bechdel Test? (TOS to ENT) | The Mary Sue ( www.themarysue.com )
I found this after reading and responding to this post here about early Trek fans’ prejudicial negative reaction to TNG. One of my responses (see here) was to point out that any fans of the progressiveness of Trek ought to have been mindful of the room for improvement over TOS, with female representation being an obvious...
Well that's just typical ( i.imgur.com )
(trying with a direct gif link instead of gifv - my other posts always seem to have a broken preview)
Paramount Plus just dropped its big Star Trek crossover episode early ( www.theverge.com )
If you’re a Paramount Plus subscriber, you can go watch Boimler of Lower Decks geek out over the cast of Strange New Worlds right now.
This spammer created multiple accounts on various Lemmy instances to post self advertisements. How do we combat this? ( media.kbin.social )
So, I guess Threads is officially spyware... Not at all shocked, but, Jesus that's a lot of data they're wanting. ( media.kbin.social )