Devide

verb

Obsolete form of divide.

  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    If I refer to the negative outcome of something already attempted multiple times, while people insist we should try doing the exact same thing in ignorance of those attempts and they outcomes, there is no “feigning” going on; I actually do know more.

    And my analogy is directed at the people who have demonstrated their ignorance/naivete by insisting that raising taxes always leads to an increase in tax revenue, even though, again, knowledge of that history makes it clear that not only is that not a given, but that it literally caused the opposite every time previously attempted.

    You need to stop feigning competence when you’re insisting we repeat others’ mistakes. Learn some history.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      You’re doubling down again, lmao. You aren’t the god of econ 101, and are deliberately trying to make a false point, that being a wealth tax doesn’t help just because it can be done poorly. Moreover, I’m a Communist, a wealth tax is insufficient for what I want, it’s just a tool in a toolbox.

      In your own words, “learn some history.”

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        You aren’t the god of econ 101

        Yeah, it doesn’t take a god to understand that something we already know doesn’t work shouldn’t be attempted again.

        There is a reason that the could of countries that still have wealth taxes (read: didn’t repeal them outright) changed them so that they’re no longer aimed at the wealthiest, and they’ve become just another tax primarily shouldered by the middle class, defeating the whole stated purpose of getting more tax revenue out of the ultra-wealthy.

        a false point, that being a wealth tax doesn’t help just because it can be done poorly.

        You say this as if what’s being proposed in the US is materially different from the previously-failed implementations around the world.

        It isn’t. There has been no good answer to the question ‘how do we keep this from being the catastrophic failure it was elsewhere?’ from its proponents. They’re just doing the infamous definition of insanity, just try the exact same thing and expect a better result, because reasons.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            All of your points involved putting words in my mouth, and evading the simple facts:

            • It’s been tried myriad times already, and has failed not only to increase tax revenue from the wealthiest, but also failed to increase the overall amount of tax revenue, period
            • You clearly have no historical knowledge of the above, nor of why they failed and were soon repealed by every nation that implemented it, or neutered completely out of their ostensible aim to target the ultra-wealthy, and becoming just another tax burden for the middle class
            • The above makes it extra clear that the ‘but it’ll work when we do it’ is a completely empty claim. If you can’t even articulate why it failed all those times before, how can you hope for a more successful attempt?

            All you’ve done here is straw man me and accuse me of being condescending, while desperately evading the above.

            Do you really think all those countries that implemented and then later repealed their wealth taxes, got rid of them because they were effective? Use your brain.