#tax morale

[knifearo]

like it's honestly kind of ridiculous at this point

[dissonantpapersouls]

"You know, those single-use masks everyone is wearing in the pandemic are made of plastic too,” my friend Imani Barbarin said to me. Imani is a talented disability advocate who often speaks about the intersection of disability and environmentalism. She pointed out that the acceptable use of plastic is always set according to what a healthy person needs to be healthy (think masks, gloves, plastic prescription bottles, kinesiology tape… even home delivery supplements that individually package your daily vitamins), but when it comes to someone with a disability using plastic, everyone wants to shame them for killing the planet. “You need what you need,” she said to me in a gentle but firm voice. She was right."

K.C. Davis, How to Keep House While Drowning

https://www.strugglecare.com/resources

https://youtu.be/M1O_MjMRkPg?si=jQHsLLG65sngYZUI

The images are screenshot of two graphics. The first has a beige background with black text, certain words highlighted in blue, reading: "1. Care Tasks Are Morally Neutral

2. Rest is a Right, Not a Reward.

3. You Deserve Kindness Regardless Of Your Level Of Functioning

4. You Can't Save The Rainforest If You're Depressed

5. Shame Is The Enemy of Functioning

6. Good Enough Is Perfect"

The second image is plain white background with gray text reading:

"Care tasks are morally neutral. The way you do them, how often you do them, whether you can keep up with them or not. It's not a reflection of whether or not you're a good or bad person, whether you're worthy of love, whether you're a success or a failure. They truly are not moral obligations. They're just functional tasks. They serve a function and that function is to care for you. And the only reason to do them is because you're a person that deserves to function and you don't have to do anything to be deserving of function. And regardless of your level of functioning, you do deserve kindness."

[nando161mando]

When criminals run society

[gordonsicedcoffee]

And you, huh? What about you? What sort of shady shit have you been up to, hmm?

I'm a Senior V.P. for a real estate development company.

JULIE BENZ as BRIT STEVENSON SAW V (2008) dir. David Hackl

[marzipanandminutiae]

also someone on that post of McMansion getting renovated into a different McMansion was like "people who love old things don't realize that a lot of it was just cheap mass-produced stuff like the furniture and household goods they hate today!!!!"

and like. okay. there are articles on how cheap mass-produced stuff has gotten worse in just the last ten years. is it really that hard to believe that it was vastly better-made 100+ years ago?

also that should make MORE of an impact, I think, than simply assuming it's all the same as exquisite artist-crafted furniture in mansions. even the equivalent of Wish.com housewares in the 19th century were often 100X more durable than what we have today

(and no, that doesn't mean Western Society BetterTM or anything else the marble statue PFPs spout. forms of mass production happened in many societies, from cheap ceramics made in China and Japan for export to copies of ancient grave goods made in Egypt and the Mediterranean during archaeological revival crazes)

I have been living in Working or Middle-Class People's Apartments c. 1910-1920 for the past ten years. one of them was just rendered uninhabitable by fire, but a surprising number of the walls and doors were still standing. I firmly believe you could run a tank into those radiators and not damage them. things WERE often better-made in Ye Olden Times, and it doesn't make one ignorant or a Trad to say so

[zeroducks-2]

-

Right, because antis doxxing people, sending death threats, destroying people's livelihoods and bringing them to self-harm ain't a thing, nuh huh sir surely a teenager getting bullied to the point of attempting suicide is not a real problem! It's just silly fandom things that give you brainrot! How cringe of people to worry about this! Surely the rise in puritanism, the anti-trans wave, the absolute state of dismay LGBT+ rights are in (and the even darker future that awaits) aren't directly linked to the internet version of fascist mace-bearers that make someone's life impossible just because they do something that they deem immoral!

We should all keep paying taxes and mind our own business and shake our heads at these stupid not deep things that have zero impact on real life, cause you know there is nothing more inconsequential than bullying, harassment and policing fandom spaces with puritanical scrutiny. Surely all of this doesn't matter and we need to get real problems am I right. Cause this doesn't affect tangible real life it's just cringe people being cringe on the internet about inconsequential things.

[abolishthefed]

[amerasdreams]

I'm sorry but you're either for Ukraine or for russia. There is no middle ground. I don't care what your normal politics are. This isn't about politics. This is about people's lives. About them not being taken over by a country that is not only bombing them but raping and torturing them.

If you don't think we should do all we can possibly do to stop such evil, you are on the wrong side of history.

[sixpossumsinaclownsuit]

Remember kiddos, polygamy and polyamory was only demonized for four core reasons:

Tw: homophobia, sexism, religious commentary, political commentary, oppression

1.) America wanted more taxes

Part of the legal institutionalization of marriage is that there is tax benefits for the individual parties when they get married, and financial ties/power is attorney between married people. It becomes messy when these ties extend to multiple people/marriages and the I*RS wants they tax money, and America would rather just make an entire way of life illegal than make laws and systems that accommodate people. See point #4 for more on that

2.) Puritan culture (aka thinly veiled sexism)

Puritan culture relies heavily on systems of control that villainize sex and women (that's a whole other conversation but I won't digress), and lots of marriages/polygamous marriages having sex with each other is obviously bad bad bad!! Hard to control!! Save the defenseless women from their pimp husbands! Orgies, the devil's work! And...

3.) Homophobia

Good god, women being in marriages together! Married to a man, but what if these women end up by being married to each other by extension! And having sex with each other! And what if a woman marries more than one man! Would these men become inferior to their wives? Would one of these husbands be less dominant than another? Would the men function in these complex marriages like a woman?! Disgusting! That's gay (derogatory!) Would these husbands be having sex with each other? But that's gay and gay is bad! Sex is bad! God, purge these sinners of their Sodomy!

(Surprise surprise, homophobia has very little to do with actual gay people and has everything to do with puritan culture, control, sexism and the demonization of sex, and points two and three are actually the same thing)

4.) Christian nationalism

Polygamy and nonmonogamy is normalized and integrated with several non-Christian and alternative Christian cultures going back thousands of years, like Islam, Mormonism, feudal Japanese/samurai cultures, Hinduism, several Native American cultures, etc... even in the Bible in Judeo-Christian history and biblical era cultures nonmonogamy was normalized. Banning nonmonogamy in America is banning the right to engage in non-christian religious rite and practice. It's only something criminal to post-puritan Christians and those beliefs becoming law, regardless of other religious beliefs and practices also existing in America, is the unseparation of church and state.

So before you tell a polyamorous person "oh that's cheating with permission" or "I could NEVER do that," or "I love my partner too much to do that/cheat like that," remember that these are the institutions and the propaganda you're upholding with your judgement. Supporting/ being kind about polyamory is religious tolerance, and biting your thumb at the I*RS.

Tl:dr, the dissolution of separating of church and state, puritan culture and the sexism/homophobia associated with puritan culture is why nonmonogamy is demonized and why polygamy is illegal in America.

Tone indication/post intention: satirical and exaggerated tones criticizing longstanding institutions of oppression with the intent to explain why judging, hating or criticizing nonmonogamous practices is oppressive and a result of propaganda. This post is not intended to persuade people who practice monogamy to practice nonmonogamy instead or to demonize monogamy. It is intended to advocate for breaking the stigma around nonmonogamy.

[eaglesnick]

“When the rich rob the poor its called business. When the poor fight back its called violence” - Mark Twain

Although I think winter fuel payments to pensioners should be means tested , I also believe the super wealthy in Britain should be made to  pay a little extra towards the “black hole" in the economy.

Reeves and Starmer’s argument for cutting winter fuel payments to all but the poorest pensioners is not that wealthier pensioners don’t need  tax-payer handouts, but they have to make this cut to help fill the £22bn deficit in public finances left by the previous Tory government.

If they believe what they say then there are other ways to raise the necessary taxes without penalising the poorest within our communities.

The Times Rich List informs us that the 50 wealthiest people in Britain are ALL multi billionaires. The combined wealth of these 50 people is estimated to be between £500 -£700 billion depending on whose figures you use.

Talking of the gross economic inequalities in the UK Sharon Graham of the Unite Union said:

What Unite propose is that rather than “pick pocket” 10 million pensioners of £300, Starmer and Reeves should introduce a Wealth Tax. If the government were to introduce a 1% tax on the 1% of wealthiest families in Britain, this would raise £25bn, more than enough to fill the so-called “black hole".

According to Unite this tax would affect:

“The top 1%, broadly those people with £4 million clear and no mortgages. Anything over that would be taxed at 1%. So if you had £6 million and no mortgage, just clear assets and money, then it would be 1% on your extra £2 million” (Sharon Graham, Mirror, 09/09/24)

I do not know how accurate Unites figures are but the wealthiest 1% of UK households are extremely rich indeed.

Approximately 685,500 households make up the richest 1% of British families.

"In the UK, the analysis found, the richest 1 per cent of people are now wealthier than 70 per cent of the population combined. The richest 685,500 people in Britain are worth a total of £2.8 trillion ($3.4 trillion), compared with 48 million people in the UK whose combined wealth totals £2.4 trillion.” (The National: 16/01/23)

 (Just in case you don’t know, a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000)

Clearly this group can afford to pay higher taxes. According to the Financial Times, (07/01/22)  the richest 1% of UK households had wealth that was 230 times higher than for the least wealthy.

Starmer and Reeves could levy a wealth tax on the richest 1% of UK families but will they? Taking money from the poor is by far the easiest option. With wealth comes influence and power and these families are not shy to in wielding that power and influence to protect their interests.

Before the election Labour said they had no plans for a wealth tax.

“Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has ruled out any version of a wealth tax on the richest in society should Labour win the next general election." BBC News: 27/08/23)

Despite the “unexpected shock" of finding a £22 billion black hole in the economy Labour insists it still has no intension of introducing a tax on wealth.

“Labour has no plans to adopt Unites wealth tax plan, says cabinet minister” (LBC: 25/09/24)

Economic politics as usual then!

Seriously, what is the point of a Labour government if it does not at least try to introduce policies that ensure a fairer distribution of wealth? Only the morally bankrupt would prefer to “pick pocket” the poor rather than tax the rich.

 Where is Robin Hood when you need him?

[gutsfics]

FINALLY I DRAW SOMETHING!!!!!!!

some Joseph, both young (around 1980 i'd say, when he was traveling w Stan a few years before the portal incident) and old (~2017, now an art teacher at Westchester High). i like to think the first one is a picture Stan took of him while they were traveling and the second one is his staff photo at WH. the more things change the more they stay the same. i might give em backgrounds and foregrounds to look like that

he's had that jacket since the 70s. real leather will last you.

no glasses alts + the first sketch below

[milimeters-morales]

my fav in-universe joke for spidey’s nyc is that Spidey will do something simple yet kind, like doing someone’s homework, and when that person posts the picture like “omg spidey thank uuuu” a ton of people reply with pictures of spidey doing the same thing or something very similar

[9w1ft]

Don't you find the strict rules of society in Japan overwhelming for you and the kids?

not one bit

[nando161mando]

Pete is speechless about Airlines tried to stop Biden for scrapping junk fees

[asurrogateblog]

as a media psychology researcher 85% of my job is figuring out the most horrifically academic way to say "you idiots wouldn't last a day on tumblr"

[rotzaprachim]

there are a lot of goyim esp from other Marginalised backgrounds that are taking the wrong lessons away from the fact that it turns out that a group of primarily socialist/communist people from an extremely oppressed cultural group with deep ties to an area are in fact more than capable of founding a regional settler colonial ethnostate in that area, a state that was capable of the mass dislocation and then intergenerational imprisonment of hundreds of thousands and then millions of people, and that while many non Jews feel morally pure and free of this ideology, the reality of the situation should terrify everyone