Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

@hack_char @mcc @nina_kali_nina no code should ever be committed without review

@mathew purity is overrated on all sides

@xgranade it depends so much, I mean I can oppose screwdrivers being used to drive nails into the wall

“From those to whom much is given, much is expected.”

If anyone would know, I guess it’s the WSJ? https://www.wsj.com/finance/billionaires-low-taxes-are-becoming-a-problem-for-the-economy-27a560ca

@mossyrua don't really agree; you can make a billion dollars. But ask yourself: what is the purpose of money? What is it for? Why are we here? And most importantly of all, when is enough?

@klongeiger it is kinda "y-combinator for the rest of us", exactly, make wildly diverse small investments in our greatest natural resource: each other.

@dozymoe that's what I was getting at in an earlier reply. Look closely at what is given, and to where.

@BoredomFestival yes, now tell me step by step how we do that. I know one way, which is increasingly the only viable way I can see due to how badly the couples counseling is going, but nobody wants to hear it.

@dxzdb yeah but he "gave" it to self serving bullshit. Look more closely.

Turns out people who know struggle are far, far more generous than the rich. Plus MacKenzie Scott out there showing everyone else how it should be done. If I had billions, believe me, our family would have deployed half of it already, as we already did: https://blog.codinghorror.com/launching-the-rural-guaranteed-minimum-income-initiative/

Remember when people thought “trickle down” economics actually worked? Perhaps if we give a lot more money to the rich it will start working one day, somehow? That seems to be the current plan, but I have another idea: what if we reversed it and used “trickle up” to give money to those most in need? All the data I can find, including our rgmii.org data and studies in progress, all seem to show that this direction works. ⬆️

@kboyd so why exactly would we favor the "near-impossible" plan over the "gee, almost every time we see a new study the data shows it works, and it's pretty simple" plan?

@kboyd Why not better life for not just 90%, but even more, 95% of people with the same funds, using a more efficient mechanism: actually TRUSTING each other. As for the rest:

Google "means testing industrial complex" and when our data goes into https://ubidata.io/ feel free to analyze all that global data and you tell us.

@mttaggart I am in this picture AND I LIKE IT 😘💛 p.s. https://blog.codinghorror.com/launching-the-rural-guaranteed-minimum-income-initiative/

@cwicseolfor and whether you agree or not is ultimately irrelevant. We are already doing it, and will continue to do it, and we will bury politicians in valid scientific data showing FAR more efficient basic means testing IS possible, across dozens or hundreds of american counties running GMI programs, until they win elections on that platform. Or form a new country right here, that does. Whichever. Watch us do it. It'll be fun.

@decoderwheel @aeischeid and how exactly are they "clawing it back" when billionaires pay 0% or quite close to 0% right now, today? How? Please explain it to me, break it down for me step by step, so I can understand how this can happen. Ref: https://infosec.exchange/@codinghorror/116034715309329431

@cwicseolfor data doesn't support that, though. You don't hate means testing. You hate the means testing industrial complex. and I agree, KILL THE MEANS TESTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.. and build something far simpler not perversely motivated to become as complex and arduous as possible to extract max dollars from governments

@cwicseolfor lol the "tax system" in this country is already so gutted as to be meaningless. It's the first thing the current regime did. Look up the details. Show me otherwise. I don't think you will be able to, but again, take it as a challenge: prove me wrong with recent facts and data. Because all the facts and data I've looked at recently say the same thing: maybe if you have a w-2, but for everyone richer than that, their effective tax rate is close to 0%

Meanwhile, means testing as currently executed remains punitively intrusive, expensive to administer

Then how is GiveDirectly able to do it for 90+ cents on the dollar, compared the government a 70+ cents on the dollar. (hint: politicians have to insist on wildly complex, massively expensive anti-fraud systems, otherwise one "welfare queen" can sink their political career forever) Why would we give money to people who are well off? That seems FAR more wasteful than building a simple means testing system... and GD has already done that. Look at the stats.