ObjectivityIncarnate

On paper, yes, in practice, no.

In the US, at the time that marginal tax rates got that high, the amount of things you could deduct was also MUCH higher. Truth is, nobody ever actually paid 90% back then.

Not quite. 🤓 Humans and monkeys are both primates.

1 in 4 households earning over $100,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck–not because they can’t make ends meet, but because their money management sucks. A high income has very little relationship with responsible borrowing, despite what many would assume.

imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.

That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.

You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt.

No I’m not. Those people are unknown quantities, and so also suffer if credit scores go away, because bad borrowers are worse than first-time borrowers, so without credit scores, first-timers will be treated worse.

And how exactly is guessing your credit worthiness based on those factors a better system than literally keeping track of what happened each previous time money was lent to you, when it comes to making a decision on lending money to you?

This is like arguing it’s a better idea to select NBA players by their height, than by their performance in high school and college basketball games.

Only people who are bad credit risks ever come up with this take, lmao.

The sole function of credit scores is to benefit people who are reliably ‘good for it’ when they borrow money. Without them, everyone is treated as just as high a risk as the worst borrowers who are least likely to pay back their debts, and you gain no benefit from reliably paying back your debts. But with them, your good borrowing is kept track of, and good reputation means lenders trust you more to pay your debts back, so they’re willing to lend more, and they are willing to charge less interest.

Removing credit scores changes nothing for bad borrowers, and hurts good borrowers.

Yeah, this is just people not understanding how credit scores work, part #57294, lol

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only reason I know of for cis kids to use puberty blockers is as a measure against the condition precocious puberty, which basically means the body is going into puberty too soon.

If that’s correct, then this isn’t really a good argument, because using drugs to delay premature puberty until its ‘normal time’ is very different from delaying ‘normal time’ puberty to a future ‘late time’–the latter moves the body into an abnormal state, while the former movies out out of one.

Isn’t that kind of like arguing that because we’ve been using blood thinners successfully for a long time (leaving out that it’s used primarily on people who are prone to blood clots to treat that condition), that there’s definitely no harm in prescribing blood thinners to people with regular blood?

It’s every day.

Already established to be a pretty much meaningless statement. It’s also a fact that mothers abuse children every day, on average, too.

Do you think it’s fair to say mothers “constantly” abuse children, based on the above technically-correct fact?

I’ll bet you don’t. But you’re happy to do it about a demo you’re biased against.

It’s constant.

That’s bullshit. You’re just bad at statistics, and/or letting things like social media warp your perception of reality.

A tiny minority of men react violently to rejection.

Walk a mile in a young woman’s shoes and you’ll get to experience it firsthand.

I was raped by a woman, but you won’t find me making dumbass statements implying all women are rapists because of it, because I’m capable of logical, rational thought.

How’s this for “reality” when it comes to gendered violence: research out of Harvard showed that, among male/female relationships where one of the two ‘members’ is domestically violent and the other isn’t, the violent one is the woman over 70% of the time.

men absolutely attack women every day for shunning a man’s advances

This is a completely weightless statement, considering that it’s true if as few as 365 men a year do this, out of ~4,000,000,000. In other words, 0.000009125%.

Pretty low bar for shitting on half the world, no?

The perception of safety, maybe. But not actual safety. It’s an important distinction.

The fact that a worker who barely makes ends meet pays 10-20 times the taxes Amazon pays is… Fascinating in a dark way.

That is absolutely not a fact, lmao.

I also said “generally speaking”, you know.

Generally speaking, that’s a poor way to decide what to support.

Nope, 66% increase then, just checked.

Isn’t it clear?

No. :)

Sounds rough. But I wasn’t trying to invalidate the other guy (nor you now), just making a point that individual circumstances don’t dictate the state of things overall.

Guess the juxtaposition by itself was too subtle to convey that, lol. Oh well.

Millennial and I’m making over twice at much as I was in 2012. 🤷‍♀️

It can’t be free.

What you’re actually saying is that “childcare should be communally funded by taxes”.

I’m not on board with that unless it comes with limits on reproduction, especially for those who pay zero taxes.

Stop creating more human lives when you can’t even independently support your own.