☭⃠ TheOrangeVixen ️🏳️‍🌈🇦🇷🇺🇲🍌

42.2K posts

☭⃠ TheOrangeVixen ️🏳️‍🌈🇦🇷🇺🇲🍌 banner
☭⃠ TheOrangeVixen ️🏳️‍🌈🇦🇷🇺🇲🍌

☭⃠ TheOrangeVixen ️🏳️‍🌈🇦🇷🇺🇲🍌

@ThatOneFFox

Katılım Ocak 2023
491 Takip Edilen491 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
☭⃠ TheOrangeVixen ️🏳️‍🌈🇦🇷🇺🇲🍌
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright)@CsTominaga

How touching it is to watch arithmetic dress itself up as moral philosophy and demand to be taken seriously. One sees the numbers marching in a neat little line, hats polished, chests out, and then—at the crucial moment—one discovers they have been introduced to the wrong concept entirely. “Earnings,” in this small theatrical performance, has been confused with “net worth,” and net worth has been treated as though it were a pay packet kept in a desk drawer, waiting to be counted by anyone with indignation and a calculator. Unrealised capital gain is not earnings. It is not income. It is not a wage. It is not a cheque. It is not even cash. It is a measurement—often volatile, often reversible—of what someone else might pay, one day, for an asset that has not been sold. It is a number written in pencil on the margin of a market that changes its mind as frequently as the crowd changes its heroes. To call it “earnings” is like calling a flattering rumour “a marriage proposal.” You may enjoy the thought, but you cannot spend it, and it becomes very expensive the moment you try. And that is the point the righteous always skip because it ruins the mood. If you demand tax on “wealth” defined as unsold asset values, you do not merely demand that someone “pay their fair share.” You demand liquidation. You demand forced selling. You demand that a person convert ownership into cash on your timetable, regardless of market conditions, regardless of whether the asset can be sold without collapsing its value, regardless of whether the very act of selling destroys the thing you claim is being “hoarded.” It is a curious kind of justice that requires the dismantling of productive assets simply to prove it exists. Now, the little quip—“If he’s worth 700 billion and paid 10 billion, that’s only 1.43%”—is the sort of line people repeat when they would like to sound clever without enduring the inconvenience of being correct. “Worth” is not “earned this year.” “Worth” is not “taxable income.” “Worth” is not “cash in a vault.” It is a valuation of holdings, and holdings are not a salary; they are exposure to risk, to fluctuation, to collapse, to dilution, to lawsuits, to bad quarters, to the grand comedy of the market deciding you are yesterday’s miracle. And here’s where the sermon becomes a bar-room rant in a cheap suit. The vampire imagery, the foaming talk of “bloodsucking billionaires,” the sweaty certainty that the world’s complexity can be solved by yelling “percentage” at it—this is what people do when they cannot distinguish between resentment and analysis. It’s not a revolution; it’s a tantrum with punctuation. You can practically smell the stale beer of it: Yeah, yeah, eat the rich, because that’s easier than learning how money actually works. Let us be vulgar for a moment, since vulgarity is the only language certain moralists understand. If someone holds a vast amount of wealth in shares, taxing “unrealised gains” means they must sell shares to pay the tax. Selling shares can depress the price. Depress the price enough and you don’t merely collect tax—you vaporise value. Then the same people will howl that the rich “lost” money to avoid paying, as if destroying a portion of one’s wealth is a clever loophole rather than a bleeding wound. It is like insisting a man pay rent on a house he has not sold, and then mocking him for cutting down the house to afford your invoice. The sweetest part is the pose of egalitarian modesty: “Billionaires shouldn’t have to pay more tax than we do, they should pay the same percentage.” Splendid. A slogan so tidy it could be printed on a tote bag and carried straight past the point. The “same percentage” of what? Income? Realised gains? Consumption? Wages? Dividends? You cannot have “the same percentage” of a category you have not defined, and you certainly cannot define it as “whatever number makes the rich look worst in a tweet.”

ZXX
0
0
2
3.2K
Agorist Femboy Ⓐ³🏴
Agorist Femboy Ⓐ³🏴@AgoristFemboy·
@Ultrahoppean Lot of people getting mad at their imaginations nowadays Please find me a single ancom who wants to execute people for being agorists/mutualists/etc.
English
25
0
5
17.1K
nyara
nyara@nyaraVT·
It’s crazy how as a trans woman I’m just expected to “debate” my existence and validity as a woman, while governments criminalise our healthcare There is no nuance to be had when the media and politicians want us dead, but I’m supposed to convince every transphobe of my position
English
177
142
963
48.1K
work from home bodyguard
work from home bodyguard@evilpostmaker·
@vladuhat999 @nyaraVT because you're asking someone to debate their very existence. no one should have to, or is obligated to defend their existence. just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you're owed a debate, google is free
English
8
0
18
544
Rick
Rick@TheSandwichWolf·
@LizCalibra It came with windows 11. It's a 2024 acer predator. I tried putting windows 10 on it before but I couldn't find any specific drivers for it.
English
1
0
0
27
Rick
Rick@TheSandwichWolf·
I feel so defeated right now. It just would not play ball with bazzite or mint.
Rick tweet media
English
7
1
21
790
Charlotte Lee
Charlotte Lee@cljack·
Do Europeans know you can just buy a big mattress instead of smushing two small ones together
Charlotte Lee tweet media
English
941
29
2.2K
350.3K
riley bobbert
riley bobbert@RileyBobbert·
@InsaneCope whats the cope? he's forgotten and his legacy barely meant anything. i could be far left or far right, but what i said is still true. people said it was going to ignite a civil war looooool
English
3
0
2
460
☭⃠ TheOrangeVixen ️🏳️‍🌈🇦🇷🇺🇲🍌 retweetledi
UNDΘΘMΞD
UNDΘΘMΞD@Undoomed·
@InsaneCope Idiots are so terminally online that they think Google trends is the same as what people remember.
English
0
3
53
994
Andrew47
Andrew47@MaxwellCa4734·
It typically does because most people globally speaking didn't know kirk personally and weren't fans of him. When the assassination occurred, there was a transient increase in popularity which dropped sharply. So yes, the claim that "*most*" people forgot about Kirk is correct. Keep in mind, the grifters who pretended to be distraught over Kirk don't care.
English
5
0
0
148
Andrew47
Andrew47@MaxwellCa4734·
@InsaneCope The insane cope is what? Statistics? Aside from race statistics, which I agree with, conservotards weak spot is using data and actual facts to view reality with.
English
9
0
2
875