Why did you feel the need to say this twice?
You're now wing both times. Funding is very different from insurance, which was the entire point of this discussion.
Bronzebeard
joined 3 weeks ago
No. Social security is not funded the same way that insurance is. We're talking about the funding here, so the comparison does not work.
Or maybe a sauce that's not owned by a decent sized corporation pulling in 10s of millions a year...?
He's not American
The real story is that they discovered the crimes and have once again chosen to let the criminals pretending to be police off the hook
Taking a tourist trip to space does not make you a real astronaut.
That's not the way the math works, regardless of how you "see it".
This was about bluesky/Twitter type social media. Things with reshare and follows to specific users, where someone you follow arguing with someone you don't will expose you to the person you don't follow.
Do you know why 30% was chosen? It was the typical cut retail took. Physical stores selling goods take that much to cover their lease, logistics in moving those good to the store and employees.
Online stores do not share most of those costs. 30% is not needed.
While I agree the cap needs to be removed. The cap is only stopping you from subsidizing more of the working class. They are not subsidizing you. The payout is also capped. You're effectively paying a portion of your contribution to boost the payout of multiple other people who contributed less during their careers
Some of them are, which is even more confusing.
I didn't say you did. I was specifically commenting on the sweet baby Ray's.
If you're going to eat the rich, don't give more money to the rich when you season them...