Yes, you are incorrect for dozens of reasons and using multiple terms incorrectly.

Lmao no, they’re not “classical liberals”. is this bait?

wdym?

It’s easier to understand the process under the assumption that the person is innocent.

If someone is arrested for prostitution, they would be fingerprinted, etc (processed), then within 24-48 hours will have an arraignment hearing. At the arraignment, a judge will present charges and the defendant will plea innocent or guilty. The judge will then set bail. The bail amount will be higher than the defendant can pay in the majority of cases (avg $10,000). The defendant will either buy bail bonds or have family help pay.

If not, which is very very likely, the defendant will be held in pre-trial detention, aka Jail. Half a million people are incarcerated because they are unable to pay their bail. This makes up 2/3rds of the prison population. These people are incarcerated because they are poor. Again, they have not been convicted of anything. During this time, it is very likely that the defendant will lose their job and housing.

After pre-trail detention, the defendant will go to trial. Here the police will produce whatever evidence they have in this hypothetical. For the sake of this hypothetical, the police do not fabricate evidence and instead rely on circumstantial evidence and random testimony from people who hate the defendant. This will be presented to the judge, having already been agreed on by the lawyers for the prosecution, state of xyz, and the defendant, public defender (or maybe private attorney). The judge, acting in capacity of the court, (possibly a jury, but more often a judge) will then either convict or acquit and lay out sentencing if applicable.

They would produce evidence subject to discovery and the court would either convict or acquit you. Depending on the situation there would be other charges, and maybe you confess for some reduction in sentencing, etc.

The police don’t need to literally witness a crime to arrest someone.

Liberalism is a reaction to feudalism. It aims for systems of governments that maintain:

1. Bureaucratic neutrality and equality under law (ie. not kings)
2. Governmental transparency and input (ie. will of the governed)
3. Capitalist property relations and legalist dispute mechanisms (ie. courts)

Libertarianism originated as a term for anarchists, but now roughly means conservatives. Libertarianism attempts to bifurcate something which it calls “the Market” from “the State”.

To avoid this confusion, the economic system has been moved out as libertarianism.

This is simply not true. This is not how libertarianism originated, and the imagined bifurcation of economic state and governmental state is extremely modern.

For example, accessibility improvements of government buildings is a liberal movement.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, signed by the George H.W. Bush, is a mechanism of welfare reform which established a tort system of accessibility. The bill used cost-burden language to remove people with disabilities from public assistance and require them to individually litigate for accessibility via the court system. Please review any congressional testimony on the bill.

Minimizing the control over capitalism is a libertarian movement.

Both movements are capitalist. Governmental regulatory frameworks provide reliability and transparency for resolving disputes between capitalist actors. What do you mean by “control over capitalism”?

There’s also so called “liberals” which is not more than a hate speech. We are not “conservatives” or “liberals” in every topic.

You’ve scare-quoted so many of the relevant words that it’s hard to understand what you mean.

“incorrect” grammar is often intentional. The grammar rules included or omitted is a choice in communication. because the way something is written indicates the way it should be spoken (or thought). It conveys information about the writer and their relationship with the reader - whether it’s being written ‘casually’ as friends would write to each other, or ‘formally’ as one would write for work or school (or some mix depending on context). Most phones automatically capitalize for the 1st word of a sentence, and people Manually go in to un-capitalize it.

But it’s not just formality that gets conveyed because grammatical accuracy and word choice also indicate which items are primary and which are secondary/tertiary/etc. it varies a lot from site to site, like “ML” is an abreviation that mostly just works on Hexbear. also, i, think, there, were, a, couple, books, that, had, a, comma, between, every, word, which, is, sorta, gimmicky, but, they, sorta, read, like, this.

Definitely any indoor public space, I’ll ask friends if I’m going to theirs, and outside it depends.

iirc it’s from ubuntu-advantage-tools - you can remove it, but it’s set as a dependent for something important (ubuntu-minimal?) which makes it really annoying. I don’t use ubuntu anymore so hopefully someone who knows more will stop by.

iirc Trump hates windmills because there was a windfarm created near his golf course.

This is why the rumor doesn’t really need to be plausible or believable. It isn’t intended to deceive others. It’s intended to invite others to participate with you in deception.

In 2013, the United States’ Bureau of Economic Analysis changed the methodology for how GDP was calculated. R&D and intellectual property were reclassified as investments rather than costs, which increased the reported size of US GDP. Countries that had more high-tech and creative industries would see a boost in GDP while countries known for manufacturing would not see such a large increase. This lead to a perception that the U.S. economy is growing faster or is larger compared to countries like China.

Paint Chip Poetry has players make poems which is nice. There’s a level of warmth to it that contrasts well with mathy games and competitive games. I think it has rules for winning and losing, but I’ve never used them.

Wingspan is nice, the cards are birds and the art is very good. You could get intense about Wingspan or play very casually so the flexibility there is good.

This is the image you went with?

Someone doing organizing or even clipboard warrior stuff I’ll assume the best of them. Like even if they’re not actually a comrade it’s whatever most of the time. Maybe it’ll end up with an annoying conversation about how the USSR wasn’t actually communist or something, but you’ve gotta assume the best imo. A lot of people just wanna ‘make the world better’ without doing theory and you can just give them books when you’re done with them.

I really think you should re-address your idea on a theoretical framework. It’s difficult to imagine that a new set of income tax rates would address extreme wealth or address the crises of capitalism regardless of the numbers you have in your spreadsheet. For example, OP suggests using total wealth as a tax base to alleviate inequality which would be a new way of approaching the issue.

If you’d still like to use income tax rates to approach inequality, I would suggest starting with high negative percentages and increasing them through your table. Kinda like this:

base * { -99%, -98%, ....., 99%}

Sorry if this comes off as harsh, I appreciate that you’re looking to for a way to address these issues.

Specific example: I think you may want to check your rates, the rate differential between highest and lowest in your example seems much lower than the current system. General idea: Couldn’t the rates just be adjusted to the base or unlinked later? Changes would have to be legislative anyway.

That sounds like a sales tax, no? Which would be regressive unless you charged sales tax on purchase of debt / equity. Doesn’t matter if it’s only a sales tax on yachts or whatever because they would have to buy like every single yacht to come close to comparing with their spending on further means of production as expressed by ownership / debt.

Edit: Honestly, I’m not sure if it would stop being regressive even if there was sales tax on buying stock or whatever. Mostly going off vibes with that one.

I think taxes are supposed to be in cash, but it’s not as though that couldn’t just be changed (I think lol). Probably easier to implement on the corporate tax side, like “20% of shares go to gov per year” and it would dwindle down until the companies are public. I think this would get weird with rich ppl having a bunch of debt instead of shares though(?).

I may be dumb here, but how a real version of this tax would work? This example is basically pocket change and they’d pay cash (numbers on a computer} through some form of credit (against equity, etc}.

But if the tax left them with 1 million remaining for example, I assume that it’d basically be impossible to pay without changing the underlying ownership / means of production, no? The boring liquidity thing people say would actually apply because there wouldn’t be enough cash (even as computer numbers) to pay the tax. So the gov would have to “print” the money for it. And then the rich would get a loan from the fed to pay the tax,(?) which seems circuitous, but also it seems circuitous even if they got a loan from a normal bank. The super-rich would essentially then just be constantly building this really large debt that would exceed the total amount of money. Because no underlying ownership or production would change, it would basically be the same as now, right? literally just numbers on a computer? Taking debt forever with unlimited credit to pay the people who gave you the money?

I’m sorta falling into a weird spot where:

1. Taxes seem to not really be about funding government in the sense that the gov controls the money supply (unless that’s not true actually?), so, uh, are taxes a very dull game that everyone has to play? Is this what people are talking about when they say “providing base demand for the currency”?
2. All of these numbers seem much larger than they need to be…? In that you could only really buy ‘investments’ with them. Mostly being further means of production or scams. I get that there are markets for really expensive things (yachts come to mind), but honestly comparatively those don’t really seem expensive. Is there some other use for money that I’m too poor to understand?
3. Money does seem kinda fake as well tbh.

So am I being uncharitable and there is a way for a tax to actually un-rich billionaires? Would they have to sell shares/debt to the state eventually building state ownership? It all seems a bit difficult and roundabout, but maybe that’s just my lack of understanding. Also please don’t respond with something from an econ class.