>>150022277
>if the rich losers of the world didn’t believe they were entitled to others’ labor
Don't rich people typically pay people to do things for them? That's not entitlement, that's employment.
>>150023101
It's become fashionable in certain subcultures to glorify personal frailty as marker of social status. Therefore, people habitually form their thoughts and emotional reactions into magnifying mundane nuisances of life into debilitating "trauma" and receive social support for doing so. This mechanism is basically what cognitive-behavioral therapy uses to deal with debilitating trauma (it actually works), and using the same process to program trauma IN can actually work too. So, when you see someone claiming to be traumatized or debilitated at some minor issue no reasonable person would be emotionally invested in, you're probably either seeing someone putting on an act for social points, or someone who has drunk enough kool-aid that they have legitimately traumatized themself.
>>150025970
Those things sound nice, don't they? But policy is more complex than campaign slogans. What "loopholes" would you close? Those tax deductions are typically there to incentivize behavior. And companies / rich people are relatively mobile. Taxes are a factor in where they reside. Raise taxes without other sufficient incentives to keep them around, and they'll simply pack up and move somewhere else, leaving the original area financially worse off than keeping the original tax rate and having people around to pay it. And econ 101, a binding minimum wage leads to higher unemployment, as jobs that produce insufficient income for the employer to justify that wage are eliminated rather than filled. The people employed at minimum wage would be better off with a higher minimum wage, but fewer would be employed, with more people depending on social safety nets. If the social safety nets are good enough to live on, it would be better to eliminate the minimum wage.
