borrow against those assets to access their wealth tax-free.

...until they pay the loan back, you mean.

Hell, loans better be tax free, it's not income if you have to pay it back.

P.S. Some food for thought: if workers' labor is being 'skimmed' by employers, making workers into a source of profit as a result, then why would a company ever downsize as a measure against financial difficulty? Why would any business ever fire anyone who's doing their job, if worker = profit for the business?

Who do you think the profit of increasing the price tag goes to?

Whoever sells the appreciated asset to someone else, who was willing to buy it at the new, higher price.

And if they don't sell, there is no profit, it's still unrealized.

It just frustrates me how much trans people/activists fuck up their own messaging with confusing/ambiguous/self-contradicting rhetoric, you know?

Another major example imo, is using the single word "gender", both to describe gender identity (something an individual person has), and gender roles (something a society has), sometimes in the same damn sentence.

The best way to ensure a discussion isn't productive is to make sure that the 'discussers' are using the same terms, but are defining them differently, lol...

It's literally not a fact. Net worth is a price tag, not an amount of cash.

No they aren't. The number that's increasing is a price tag, not cash. That's why no one's wallet or bank account gets bigger when that same number goes down.

I guess what they're getting at is that if "non-binary" is considered a gender identity unto itself, then you could describe one being trans with the transition being "from man to non-binary", for example.

Gender identity doesn't get assigned at birth. There is no "gender" field on a birth certificate.

Sex gets identified at birth (at the latest, usually before, during pregnancy, unless specifically requested to keep it secret).

Two reasons this is important to point out:

• Assignment implies that the act of assigning is what makes it so. It's not. If a doctor says that a male baby is female, it's not now female just because they said so. "Identify" is a much more accurate description of what the doctor is doing.
• The whole premise of "transness" being a thing relies on the notion of sex and gender being two distinct, independently-variable traits. So be careful not to conflate them. It causes needless confusion, since conflating them literally undermines the whole thing--after all, if "sex" and "gender" are equivalent, then it's objectively impossible to be trans.

wowwww a trans person making unfair assumptions/criticisms of people for quoting an extremely popular piece of pop culture.

let's all say it together!!

Being trans does not grant a prejudice pass!!

The fact is, most Harry Potter fans neither know nor care about any of the personal exploits of the author.

If she kept that a secret or anything then sure... But it's not exactly a hidden fact that money gained from Harry Potter is being put towards hate.

The spaces you hang out in obviously make a big deal of these and broadcast them consistently, I'm sure. But it's clear you spend enough time in them that you've lost perspective in how things are in the 'world at large'.

Although it's very obvious and "not hidden", to you, it wouldn't even have to be hidden from the average Harry Potter fan, because they make literally zero effort to seek it out. They simply don't care about anything she does, outside of writing the books they like to read.

P.S. The way you worded it in a previous comment implies heavily that a lack of explicit criticism of Rowling is equivalent to "support". It isn't.

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.