BritannianSpirit

964 posts

BritannianSpirit banner
BritannianSpirit

BritannianSpirit

@GTXTrainPower

Writer, Roleplayer, Character Hoarder. https://t.co/zCWlNlZwho

Australia 가입일 Temmuz 2017
644 팔로잉21 팔로워
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@idgafayf702 @kid_riles Taxes? Trump has spent billions in the war with Iran. You have the money to pay first time home owners. The tariff refund would have worked - but it would've went to businesses, not to the people who actually paid for it (consumers.)
English
0
0
0
1
Marcus Aponte
Marcus Aponte@idgafayf702·
@kid_riles Well, genius. Explain how a president can just grant people money? I know Trump mentioned a tariff refund…. That was absurd. He can’t just give money away. So, go ahead and explain how she would have granted anyone $25k. I love to learn.
English
1
0
0
1.4K
Kid Riles
Kid Riles@kid_riles·
Kamala wanted to give first time homeowners a $25,000 credit towards the purchase of their home. Trump started a war, has no healthcare plan, caused food and fuel to skyrocket, and raped little girls. Great fucking job America.
English
500
5.1K
29K
284.8K
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@HoggerLang @4res44444444 If you watch someone die by letting a very stoppable object drop on them (Let's say, a large rock). You become an accomplice to murder. Your scenarios take power out of your hands - the scenario places you directly in power over life and death. So yes, guilty by omission.
English
0
0
1
3
Hogger Lang
Hogger Lang@HoggerLang·
@4res44444444 If I’m asleep in my bed while someone else shoots themself in the head… am I murdering them or are they commiting suicide? If I choose to live and someone else chooses to die am I murdering them?
English
2
0
0
268
BritannianSpirit 리트윗함
Alonso Gurmendi
Alonso Gurmendi@Alonso_GD·
Sounds like his coffee shop actually can afford a £15 wage
Alonso Gurmendi tweet media
Peter McCormack 🏴‍☠️🇬🇧🇮🇪@PeterMcCormack

A minimum wage of £15 would end my coffee shop, it would have to close, as would many other businesses. I’ll explain for the economically illiterate. Staff costs are currently half our costs, a £15 minimum wage is actually more than £15 an hour for the company, because you have to add: - 12.07% holiday - Sick pay - Maternity pay if and when required - National insurance - Pension contributions These costs would mean the shop loses money because remember, energy costs are up, rates are up, regulations are up. Now you can pass these costs onto the consumer - that would mean charging a lot more for coffee, people won’t pay it. The likes of Starbucks and Costa can, because they have economies of scale. The independent doesn’t. Now the little socialist will say well this is your fault, if you can’t run a business that can afford to pay its staff properly, but the little socialist has never run a business and does not understand the dynamics. Now I could pay some staff off and fill those hours myself or reduce us to one staff member during certain periods - but this proves the point that a minimum wage costs jobs. There was a time when these jobs were done by kids, perhaps on the weekend, paid a lower wage, no holiday and no silly employment rights. Perhaps they were even paid cash. The dynamic worked and small businesses like this could operate. It was also a great first job. Sadly now it isn’t worth employing entitlement youngsters at this level of pay. So alas, I don’t need the stress, the business would close, a number of jobs would be lost. Economics is about understanding these dynamics, no vibes. The cost of living is not solved through passing on inflation to the business, it is solved by ending high inflation and creating prosperity. This is what socialists don’t understand, they can’t create prosperity, they can only destroy it.

English
371
2.1K
29.2K
627.8K
BritannianSpirit 리트윗함
Hughes-on-the-Wold
Hughes-on-the-Wold@NotThatHughes·
My business is only viable if I underpay my workers
Hughes-on-the-Wold tweet media
Peter McCormack 🏴‍☠️🇬🇧🇮🇪@PeterMcCormack

A minimum wage of £15 would end my coffee shop, it would have to close, as would many other businesses. I’ll explain for the economically illiterate. Staff costs are currently half our costs, a £15 minimum wage is actually more than £15 an hour for the company, because you have to add: - 12.07% holiday - Sick pay - Maternity pay if and when required - National insurance - Pension contributions These costs would mean the shop loses money because remember, energy costs are up, rates are up, regulations are up. Now you can pass these costs onto the consumer - that would mean charging a lot more for coffee, people won’t pay it. The likes of Starbucks and Costa can, because they have economies of scale. The independent doesn’t. Now the little socialist will say well this is your fault, if you can’t run a business that can afford to pay its staff properly, but the little socialist has never run a business and does not understand the dynamics. Now I could pay some staff off and fill those hours myself or reduce us to one staff member during certain periods - but this proves the point that a minimum wage costs jobs. There was a time when these jobs were done by kids, perhaps on the weekend, paid a lower wage, no holiday and no silly employment rights. Perhaps they were even paid cash. The dynamic worked and small businesses like this could operate. It was also a great first job. Sadly now it isn’t worth employing entitlement youngsters at this level of pay. So alas, I don’t need the stress, the business would close, a number of jobs would be lost. Economics is about understanding these dynamics, no vibes. The cost of living is not solved through passing on inflation to the business, it is solved by ending high inflation and creating prosperity. This is what socialists don’t understand, they can’t create prosperity, they can only destroy it.

English
1K
6.1K
72.9K
1.4M
BritannianSpirit 리트윗함
RobbieScowlz
RobbieScowlz@RobbieScowlz·
@PeterMcCormack “Silly employment rights” You shouldn’t even be allowed to work with humans let alone employ them. Ghoul
English
98
247
18.1K
175.4K
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Ah yes because I, one person, can cut back enough to feed the starving masses by my lonesome. Am I a secret billionaire? I volunteer and donate where I can. If the people in charge did the same, I would not need to at all. The government would be blue in this, easier results.
English
0
0
0
9
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx You absolutely have the power, if you decided to cut back on your own non essential wants, to save a multitude of people. It is the same as with the button, but actually even easier, since you aren't even risking your own life.
English
0
0
0
1
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Its funny how you say that, yet criminal law still charges failure to act (Guilty by omission can still end up with consequences). Because it is actively hurting. But you clearly just don't want to admit you'd be the bad guy, morally, and lawfully in this case.
English
0
0
0
4
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx No? Like.. words have meanings. If you just make shit up what words are supposed to mean, then one cannot hold a meaningful conversation with you. "Actively hurting" is not the same as inaction.
English
0
0
0
3
BritannianSpirit 리트윗함
aya
aya@applegod_·
Charlie Kirk hasn't said anything racist this year
English
398
5.5K
73.2K
658.7K
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Bystander syndrome - Same way so many people don't act when they see something terrible happen. This is a self admission to calling yourself a malicious coward btw.
English
1
0
0
12
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx In this case, we the people do not have as much power, as with the button. But if we did - Yes, absolutely, choosing not to provide for people, is killing them. If youre stranded on an island and hog the food you dont need, from others, letting them starve. YOU'RE the bad guy lol
English
1
0
0
12
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx Delusional. You can make the argument that society is not providing for everyone, without saying 'everyone, me included, is a murderer'. If you really think so though, do try to sue yourself for murder in a court of law, by arguing this.
English
1
0
0
8
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Yes, the answer is yes. Us as a society not dedicating resources is quietly literally textbook greed and hurting them actively lmfao.
English
1
0
0
24
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx Just to really showcase the difference: Are you actively killing people in africa, by not choosing to do away with your own non-basic needs, and using that time and money to help them instead?
English
1
0
0
10
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Both are actively hurting the chances of survival. You dont 'do nothing' by pressing red. You choose 'dont help my fellow man' which is actively hurting. Both analogies work fine lmao. Guilty by omission is still guilty bucko.
English
1
0
0
24
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx Not really, no. Setting fire = actively hurting. Not helping push the boat = not actively helping. There is a big difference. Again, sabotaging is something you do actively; choosing not to pick the same side is not the same as sabotaging.
English
2
0
0
14
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Are you deliberately obtuse in this? If red hits 51%, they kill the blue boat. So setting fire to the boat is a fair comparison. Saying they would not be able to push off, because of red, is also fair. Red would be directly sabotaging their attempt either way. Making red bad, lol
English
1
0
0
40
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx No, the red boat may not potentially set them on fire; the fact that there are not enough people to push the boat off the island would be the way to phrase that <50% means death for the blue boat. Like.. where do you even get the "red sets fire to them" from?
English
1
0
0
33
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@Salt_Slinger @treyton8402 And yet I make no implications of them being stuck. Simply that there will be people assuming people want to fix the boat, and that those people will die because of the cowardice of those who run.
English
1
0
0
6
Salt Slinger
Salt Slinger@Salt_Slinger·
@GTXTrainPower @treyton8402 Everyone on the ship is free to choose the “press this button to live” button. All these “on a ship” or “in a burning building” comparisons come with a “stuck” or “trapped” implication…they imply that some people aren’t free to choose the “get to live” button. Everyone can.
English
1
0
0
6
BritannianSpirit 리트윗함
Treyton
Treyton@treyton8402·
I didn’t even realize until today that literally everyone who choses red has to say a three paragraph essay cope about why “erm actually according to game theory the red button is most optimal…” like just be honest and say you’re a pussy and don’t want to die lol
Treyton@treyton8402

Anyone who votes red button is a pussy or sociopath

English
316
140
2.9K
47.9K
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Is this your actual take? The real question would be more akin to, the blue boat being automatic, but needs 51% of the island to help push it off. But, the red boat may potentially set them on fire, and needs 100% of the island in complete unity to achieve the same result.
English
1
0
0
47
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@currydtx Let me rephrase the scenario. You are all trapped on an island. There is no food or anything on it, so you have to escape. Luckily, there are two boats, each having room for everyone. The red boat is automatic and let's everyone that takes it escape safely.
English
2
0
3
3.8K