politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
90% wealth tax is needed
Anyone with over 10 million dollars in wealth should be legally classified as a dragon and anyone stealing from their hoard shall not be punishable under the law.
Not so fun fact: The absolute richest dragons in all of fantasy, excluding Smaug, only have a net worth of several hundred million dollars. A Red Elder Wyrm will have, on average, around 2.5-3 million gold pieces of wealth, with an absolute maximum of 5 million gold pieces. That means that the absolute greediest, and richest type of dragon, by far, only has between 100,000 to 500,000 oz worth of gold.
Smaug being the absolute outlier because he had somewhere between 5 to 10 billion dollars worth of gold.
Now if you are wondering why I'm making a big deal about this, it is because 500,000 oz of gold is only worth about 1.1 billion US dollars. But that is the absolute outlier of the greediest type of dragon that there is. Still only looking at Chaotic Evil Red Elder Wyrms, the average would only be about 3.5 million gold pieces, or a mere 350,000 oz of gold. That's only about $850,000,000 and that is just the most average of the absolute greediest manefestations of greed that our limited minds could imagine. Most dragons would be absolutely fine with between $1,000,000 to $10,000,000. The literal manefestations of greed don't need more than $10,000,000 according to every treasure table.
Those people that have more than 100 million dollars have already passed the greed alignment chart into Chaotic Evil. They are damn near caricatures of dragons at this point.
My favorite is always the Egyptian god deciding to save the equivalent of $10,000 usd every day and never spend a single penny of it back in 10,000 BC and they still don't have as much money as Jeff Bozos.
I believe that the normal person can imagine themselves as a dragonslayer far more easily than a godslayer. A dragonslayer just needs a sword, shield, set of armor, and an unbreakable will. A godslayer needs to be able to turn the entirety of their target, including the things that don't exist on any Universe Plane, or Prime Material Plane, into a black hole.
These modern "unassailable" individuals that constitute global fifedoms in and of themselves are merely dragons. They absolutely can be defeated. They aren't the invincible gods that they attempt to claim to be.
Edit: umm, what Egyptian god? They had a lot of them.
Sounds like a Set thing to do. Real prideful and blows up in his face.
Fair enough, I could see Ra or Anubis doing the same, based on your description of "real prideful and having the whole thing blow up in his face." Certainly sounds like most of the exploits of all three of them.
You need to read up on Shadowrun.
Yeah, it's been pointed out before that Shadowrun has some ridiculously wealthy dragons. I think the point still stands since Shadowrun isn't exactly high fantasy. More like science fantasy, similar to Star Wars.
Right but my point is that when you start to follow the money in Shadowrun, you invariably end up with a dragon. Like, they took the metaphor literally and so the richest hoarders in the world, with their claws in every possible pie, influencing the destiny of entire countries, are literal dragons.
Maximum wealth law. Once you're worth more than 100 million, 100% of any new income goes to a designated fund for social programs.
100 million is enough money that there is still no real limit to how pampered your life can be, so there's no argument that the rule would hurt anyone.
There is a big accounting difference in use the term "wealth" and "income", especially when the wealthy take out a loan from stock holdings and not pay income tax.