President Donald Trump

.

He's talking about oral and/or anal sex.

I'm not sure what my "double standard" is.
Government employees are public servants. Employees of Uber and Walmart are not.

I can 'opt out' of shopping at Walmart; taxation is typically compulsory.

Doesn't surprise me.

It's not supposed to, consent is important.

So what ?
The argument you started with was that it’s because you pays wages to government employees .
Everyone pays wages to anyone by spending regardless being a government workers or not shrug .

So now it’s because they hold public offices ?
So why does it matter ?
Why “privacy” be only allowed to certain groups of people then ?
Why does it matter u work for the government or not ?
What it makes a difference ?

Actually lolled.

No. It was always about the fact that they hold public office.

I already answered.

Have a blessed day!

Apartheid ended in 1994...just over 30 years ago. You really think nobody was alive during that? Really?

was life for blacks in south africa under apartheid worse than in other countries in Africa in the 80s? please answer with the receipt like income, life expectancy and everything else you use to measure how life was going.

if it wasn't worse, please explain why you think apartheid was particularly bad

if apartheid was so dramatically bad for black people, why did we witness a massive immigration from black majority countries without apartheid to south africa during apartheid?

Ok .
Let’s say all income taxes are banned, would you still wanted to know how much government workers earns ?
You get the point now ?

No, I still don't get the point.

It's still the taxpayers paying the government worker's salaries, whether it's collected by way of a Federal Income Tax, a Federal Sales Tax, or the Feds randomly seizing bank accounts and transferring the assets to the government workers.

Taxpayer money is collected by force, while I freely choose to give my money to Walmart.

So, do you get my point now?

The government collects tariff money, which goes to the Treasury. Democrats are all for taxing big corporations to fund programs that help people, especially as AI threatens to replace many jobs. But if the government raises corporate taxes instead of tariffs, a company like Walmart could still raise prices to keep investors happy, even though the tax increase is framed as a noble effort to "tax the rich."

But in the real world, both tariffs and corporate taxes can raise a companys costs and both can lead to higher prices for consumers. The difference is just messaging.

Whether it’s a tax at the port or a tax on profits, companies don’t eat the cost, they pass it on. There are obvious differences here, but not near as much as I think people are giving credit to. And you have a whole host of other factors like potential environmental impacts wiht transportation emissions v local and who we are taxing exactly. I don't think its that simple.

but it also all depends on what the govt decides to do with that money. I'm sure that it will all end up being ****ed up, but my point is that tariffs, in theory, aren't exactly the total disaster that is being purported. The big corps don't like it, but sometimes thats enough for the messaging aspect of things - hence walmart. And again **** walmart.

You try to restrict responses to a narrow set of parameters because you dont want to to admit that being denied the vote means a removal of all hope for you and your children’s future.

You’re a terminally dishonest and racist PoS.

If it’s only collected through sale tax for example ,
Why you believe u pay more government workers then themselves ?
Everyone pays the same amount through the same means .
So privacy should be equal to all …

Doesn’t matter what items u pay or where I pay it .
It’s all the same to everyone .
everyone is “forced to pay sale taxes because that is how government gets the money to cover its expenses without knowing a thing what you do for a living , how much u gain per year or how much u spend on what items or services ?
So what gives u the right eradicating privacy to certain workers over others ?

A private school teacher or a public teacher will pay the same amount of taxes when they buy milk or w.e , so I don’t see why one should have a private life and another wouldn’t .
Every tax payment would be anonymous so what would you gain knowing how much certain public workers gains ?
What do u personally gains by hiding your wages and by not hiding the wages of public servants ?

This is a good post.

because you are paying them, you are literally their employer

When I pay a product at Walmart, am I their employer ?

When a public servant pay taxes on a product , he is his own boss ?

If im a public servant paying 20k in taxes and a minimum wage worker pays 2k a year in taxes, who’s my boss ?
More him then me even tho I would pay 10X more taxes ?

You aren't buying their product. That would be the government buying a product or service from a private contractor. Yes in that case you shouldn't ask for the income.

Public employees instead is like you hiring a babysitter. They are your employees, you pay them to work for you. So you gotta know how much they pay them, and what for.

Tariffs can be a tool used to protect your own industry. You deny your citizen's access to cheaper and / or better foreign goods, as to protect your own industry of the same type or to spur local investment.

Of course, this hinges on a) Actually having said industry b) Doing it in a reliable long-term manner that actually enables investing in the education, infrastructure and production facilities necessary for your industry to deliver. c) Doing it carefully enough as to not invite trade wars, but granted that this is more important the smaller your economy is.

An alternative to B is subsidies, grants and tax benefits. A good example is the CHIPS act, which in typical Trump administration fashion is both loathed as something to reject, but whose results are touted as their own accomplishment. What kind of future it has is anyone's guess. Trump has called for its reversal to congress.

The Trump administration's alternative the reliable policy was a hastily assembled list of tariffs likely assembled in ten seconds in Chat-GPT. It was so badly put together that they ended up putting tariffs on islands mainly inhabited by penguins. Which means nobody even bothered to check the list of territories and countries for whether there was people there, and I think it is safe to extrapolate that this means they also never checked for what industries would be affected.

In addition, they have changed their tariff policy more than 50 times in less than two months, an uncertainty which peaked during the absolutely absurd moment when the administration was not even able to correctly add together its own percentages of tariffs levied on Chinese goods. We can safely conclude that this creates an unreliable economy.

While the US economy is big enough to attract a lot of money regardless of how badly it is handled, you have to be pretty far gone down the MAGA-hole to think that this kind of incompetence, unreliability and havoc does much to attract additional investment in infrastructure capacity to the amount of billions. The policy could also change overnight because the president saw a post on Twitter he didn't like, or because someone handed him an expensive airplane.

Not to mention the lack of transparency in the administration in general, which extensive use of private communications and backchannels, which is undoubtedly perfect breeding grounds for corruption also in the lower ranks. Not that corruption is a big hindrance for investment, but it typically does not invite the kind of investment that benefit citizens broadly.

This is dumb. You hire your babysitter directly. In a representative government you entrust the government with carrying out its responsibilities. The only government employees that answer to me are my elected representatives.

td,

I share your dim view of the tariffs, but I don't think MAGA apologists would agree with the bolded. They would argue that appearing impetuous and erratic is a feature, not a bug. They would argue that Trump's tariffs are not intended as a long-term, stable mechanism for protecting specific highly-valued industries, but rather are intended as a short-term cudgel to coerce trading partners into fundamentally altering their trade relationships with the United States. In other words, they would argue that this is just an extension of madman theory to trade policy.

I obviously don't agree with the MAGA apologists, in part because it implies a an improbable level of planning and competence from this administration, in part because madman strategy has a dubious history of success, and in part because I don't think the administration is doing a good job of convincingly playing the madman (which is one of the main reasons why the theory has a dubious history of success). On the last point, yes, Trump is imposing tariffs haphazardly, but there is a lot of evidence at this point that he is willing to back down. The whole thing seems very reactive. It reeks more of incompetence than madness. I don't think anyone really believes that Trump is so crazy that he will intentionally run the global economy off a cliff. I suspect that world leaders are more worried that he will do so through arrogance and incompetence.

1. I don't understand a lot of this post.

2. The parts I do understand I think I already addressed twice.

3. Have a blessed day!