When our child started cutting, we bought her left handed scissors so that she had both at had and could try it out. Her left handed dad - who grew up in a country which had no left handed things - wasn’t able to use the scissors. He can also not use a left handed guitar, he has played like a righty his whole life because a left handed guitar was unaffordable and “you need two hands to play the guitar anyway, duh”.

Anyway, she’s developing into a lefty, but no one is touching the scissors.

255 grams per week is a lot more than I’d expect. Just for reference: the DGE - German Nutrition Society - recommends limiting intake of meat and meat products of not more than 300 grams per week, which is based on health aspects rather than environmental.

Great questions!

Would removing the sales tax be in addition to the wealth tax?

Yes and no.

Yes, there should be a wealth tax.

No, removing the sales tax stands as a solo proposal.

I am very much for a wealth tax, but removing the sales tax should not be proposed alongside a proposition for a wealth tax. This decreases support since a wealth tax is much more controversial than “hey how about we stop taxing bread?”

As a counter proposal to reducing or eliminating the sales tax, what would you think about eliminating income tax?

(In Germany, income tax is progressive, but I think that the following also applies to countries like Russia, where everyone is taxed 13% of their income.) Eliminating income tax would be a massive tax reduction for the most wealthy. Meanwile, people on social security or low income would basically hardly have any additional money. Studies have shown that sales tax is the tax that, percentage wise, is by far the greatest burden on low/no income households.

This should be done in general. But before I continue asking questions, are all your suggestions in addition to a wealth tax, all together, or separate?

As briefly mentioned above, I am very much pro wealth tax, but you do not need a wealth tax for the suggestions to be sensible. They can stand alone, and they should, since it is easier to get a majority to agree to them one by one (or to somemof them) than to the whole package.

–

I would also like to add: free public transport, investing in public transport, invest in (free) education programs, free childcare, and strengthening union rights so that workers have more leverage.

As well as, and this will probably sound insanely evil, but I want it to sound this way, because removing the humanitarian aspect of accepting refugees and immigrants can be beneficial if you want to have right wing people on your side: let more foreigners in. You get young workers that are highly eager to work. They will send money home, sure, but they will also spend money. Get the ruble rolling. Again, they also gotta eat, gotta live, gotta get clothes. They will spend everything they earn one way or another, and this will boost the economy - since most of them work in low paying jobs and won’t put their money in the bank. Hell they will pay taxes and contribute to the pension fund and stuff! You want foreigners! You’re getting fresh meat to exploit!

I must have phrased it poorly because that is what I meant. Don’t tax 2Mil+ houses. Unfortunately right now when people think about inheritance tax this is what comes to mind. I don’t care if you inherit a huge house tax free. I care if you inherit massive wealth. A high priced family home is not massive wealth.

German perspective, I don’t know what is applicable to the US and other countries.

First and foremost: Removing sales tax on (basic) food. Sales tax in general hits the low income population much harder than any other tax. Lowering income tax when your income is low or non existent doesn’t help as much as just to not pay an additional 7-19% on bread, milk, eggs, legumes, fruit, vegetables.

Build more affordable housing and capping rent pricing.

Increase social security and unemployment to boost the economy. Poor people don’t save up. What they get they spend. Every 1€ they get will immediately go back into the economy, hence creating economic growth, which then will create more jobs that need to be filled. The stupidest thing one can do in times of crises when people are unemployed is to save to push them into non existent jobs. If jobs and income make people richer, then you have to provide jobs to begin with. A saving instead of spending economic mindset of the public is the worst thing you can do there, and this especially regards government payouts to low/no income individuals. Or, you know, invest in people.

Inheritance tax. Raise the limit of tax free inheritance, but after that limit is reached, tax much, much more. Nobody cares if you inherit a 2M € mansion. Hell make it a 10M mansion. These aren’t the inheritances we should be worrying about, and making sure everybody knows it is not about their family’s house being taxed away from them will hopefully increase support for inheritance tax.

Not wishing him dead isn’t the same as tolerating him and his beliefs

Damn the replies to your comment are wild.

I agree with everything you say. I hate this man but I am not as petty as to think this is funny or that he should die.

The problem in this thread seems to be that children are seen as one homogenous group of people between ages 0 to 17. And you can either send you 5 year old to NYC without any technology by themselves, or check your 17 year old’s location 24/7. Forget about any kind of in between.

Like, of course I am “surveilling” my 3 year old, I am literally obligated to. I do this with my own eyes or leave them in the care of a capable person, although depending on the situation (relative, babysitter, daycare) it is still me who is liable when something happens.

I am happy to leave my 8 year old rumble around freely as long as they return home by a time that we agreed on. We can very well also agree on them calling if they won’t make it home by the agreed time, and if they don’t call or pick up their phone within an additional 30 minutes, I will check their location. This can be a known and agreed upon checking. And it is about mutual trust. I trust my kid at a certain age to be responsible and keep track of time, and be available by phone (unless otherwise agreed or if they don’t have a phone to begin with), as well as be where we agreed they would be, without checking. And I hope my kid will also trust me to keep up my side of the agreement. I won’t check unless it’s past return time and you are not picking up your phone.

This mutual trust is important in families. You deserve privacy, even if you are a kindergartener. This privacy will expand with age. This is like hiding your locked diary or leaving an open diary on your desk. You should not feel the need to hide it because I for sure won’t look at it. It is yours. Similarly, you can roam around freely even with an airtag. This thing is not for daily use.

Now, does my 17 year old need an airtag? To me they are basically an adult. Hell knows I had all the freedom in the world at that age. If they feel safer knowing I could check on them when they are on a night out, maybe we can keep a similar agreement as above. But otherwise it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me.