Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more arbitrary_name's commentslogin

How does taking some ones second mansion away to help feed struggling family decrease happiness? If there is a net decrease, the rich person needs to examine their priorities.



Doesn't this prove that nuclear weapons stop the NKs and Pakistans of the world from being bombed?


I have no idea why that's relevant, the point is, it' good to have one less nuclear armed rogue state?


The only nation to use a nuke on another person is the US. Not these “rogue” states but the US.


How pointless, biased and inflammatory. Generally, citizens commit crimes at rates higher than immigrants. Please keep that in mind while you read the Daily Mail or whatever tabloid you get your information from.


Just to offer an alternate perspective: I read that comment ironically. I recognize that tone is ambiguous online.


It's not really valid English parsing to read it that way - if the poster meant it that way then they've accidentally formed the sentence in a way that's unambiguously not ironic. Putting the word refugees in quotes makes it biased and inflammatory, accusing people seeking asylum of being rapists and murders.

If the whole phrase following the word probably was in quotes, only then could it be read ironically.


Fair. Reading more closely, I agree with you.


Years of salary to purchase home. Life expectancy. Obesity rates. Overall life satisfaction surveys. Loneliness rates. Suicide rate.

I could go on.


Fuck Donald Trump and his gross, weird, pathetic mafia.

This regime is a rogue autocracy strangling anything good about this once great country.

I hope every single person responsible for the many crimes they have committed (and they have committed crimes) faces justice, if not in this life, then the next one.

Oh, that feels good to get off my chest.


There is no next life. This is all we got. Let’s make the most of it.


If those shoes cost $200 because of higher labor costs, then a lot less people are buying them. They will buy worse imports at $180. The consumer loses.


The other commenter covered this:

"in the case of Clinton involved bringing it up for nearly a decade, an FBI investigation, an Inspector General's report on the FBI's and DOJ's handling of the case and a three year State Department investigation. It's only fair to apply the same standard here"

Does that clear it up for you? Do you still need justification to treat this seriously? Or are you a person unwilling to try and address poor leadership because of the (R) after their names?


I think both should be treated seriously, I'm not sure why you'd assume otherwise from what I've said here.

There should be just as thorough of an investigation into this one, and assuming there isn't that's a miscarriage of justice.

That said, I'm of the opinion that its great and all that they investigated Clinton's email server but the fact that nothing came of it is a problem. It absolutely violated the intent of the law in my opinion. The mere fact that they found so many emails with information that should have been marked confidential is, in my opinion, a violation of the intent of confidential information protection laws.


Yes, but far less. We can have tax free thresholds, you know. Like the capital gains exemption for sale if a house.

Any working class person against higher and broader capital gains taxes is not thinking very deeply, in my opinion.


Hard disagree. Compared to the OECD average, we collect almost double in personal tax revenue as a proportion of total tax revenue. What's more, historically personal tax revenue as a % of GDP stays roughly the same - regardless of active tax rates.

Where we fall dreadfully short compared to other countries is corporate tax revenue. In 2021, corporate income tax revenue in the U.S. was 1.6% of GDP, compared to the OECD average of 3.2%


It's messed up from first principles - hard work should be valued as a society over investment gains, and reflected at the individual level in take home income. Obtuse measures and comparative aggregates are irrelevant.


“Should be” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there - I have heard reasonable arguments either way - but it misses the point: whether the personal tax rate was all-time high or an all-time low, personal tax revenue stays roughly the same historically. In other words it’s a trap - raising the rate might make you feel better, but if history is any indicator it won’t change anything for everyday citizens.


Wrong. I can tell what you're mad about, and I find it petty.


Especially since all of those acronyms predate the current DEI wave by decades.


>charismatic public persona

You have weird taste in men.


Discrimination much?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: