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.
They’re like multiple chins, but on the back.
I know what neck rolls are.
There aren’t any on that image.
What neck rolls?
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.
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.
The thing that annoys me the most is the amount of money it takes to protect their wealth…the money paid for private guards and security alone is in the hundreds of millions.
Considering the above “protecting your wealth” instead of simply protecting yourself from hostile third parties is extremely disingenuous.
This is a very good way for a lot of terrible people to fly completely under the radar. There isn’t a(n accurate) ‘child molester’ stereotype—you do victims no favor by making assumptions like these.
how many women have been inappropriately approached by adult men.
This isn’t actually a useful metric for drawing any conclusions about men, objectively speaking.
The typical woman has met thousands upon thousands of men in her life; if she was inappropriately approached by as few as a single one of them, on a single occasion, she now falls in the ‘women that have been inappropriately approached by adult men’ category. It’s very easily possible for the percentage of such women to be as high as literally 100%, while simultaneously, the percentage of men making those inappropriate approaches is far, far below 1%.
Also, it merits mentioning that the number of victims should not be assumed to equal the number of perpetrators. The kind of man to do this sort of thing is certain to be several different women’s ‘man who inappropriately approached me’. This also widens the gap between the actual percentage of men doing this, and what may be assumed based on individual personal experiences.
One thing you could take as a data point is what searches are most common on Pornhub.
Neither ‘barely legal’ nor anything adjacent to it even made the top search list in 2024. On the other hand, there are several entries in that list that imply older women (e.g. milf, step mom, teacher).
As an aside, I was also intrigued to see that “wife” made the list.
So we had sex one more time
…
No, it doesn’t. My comment was nothing more than a grammatical correction, that “opinion” is not what you call an unsupported assertion/claim; that’s not what the word means.
I was not engaged in the underlying argument, at all, yet your response is a sputtering, indignant tirade about how I’m shifting the burden of proof, etc.
Read more carefully.
Pay more attention to who you’re replying to. Your comment makes zero sense directed at me.
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.