In the sense that a puddle and the sea are both wet, maybe.

"Readers should be aware that while there is still a lot of relevant information to be found, not all fact briefs produced by Gigafact Foundry reflect Gigafact's current methods and standards for fact briefs."

I think that one comes under the category of superficially balanced by criticising both parties, and technically correct, but out of date in terms of remaining debt and wildly, grossly misleading in terms of the picture it paints.

I love this post. Thank you.

Lol no, it's not that you said a tiny thing criticism of Harris, it's the pages and pages over days and days and weeks and weeks of criticism of Harris and occasional mild acceptance that Trump isn't perfect, always without detail or ire, and only where pushed, that's the Republican suppress-the-left-wing-vote talking points.

It he could, he would. He thinks laws are for little people. Unimportant people. Not him.

Which part of "convince left wing voters not to vote for Kamala Harris" do you think isn't an absolutely key Republican strategy?

Wouldn't it be great if Trump had to follow the same laws as normal people. He's a complete traitor to the country.

Lol. You claim to not have said any republican talking points, then right after that you spend a paragraph on the biggest one for leftwing contexts!

OK

OK

(Just to let you know, I realised I wanted to say more and have substantially edited my post. You may want to re-read it.)

OK.

It is not, by the way, false to say that employee deductions are subtracted from wages and that employer deductions are subtracted from profits, that is true both de facto and de jure.

It is false to say that reducing employer taxes increases employee wages, that isn't how the world works. It just increases profits and reduces the amount the government spends on things such as public transport, cycling infrastructure, roads, railways, hospitals, schools, social care, those sorts of things.

If you're self employed, you may well look at the entirety of the money coming in and consider it potential wages, want to pay all of that to yourself, but deduct any costs you are obliged to and in that sense there's no real difference between a cost and a salary reduction, but that's because you're self employed, it's really not how most employers work.

Usually, employers have zero desire to give all the money to the employees or to maximise wages, in fact, probably a majority of large employers prefer to minimise wages.

It isn't the win you seem to think. Few people who support Kamala for president think that she has a hope of creating world peace of that America will become even slightly socialist, but it'd get a tiny bit less shit with her and a shed load more shit with Trump, and those are the only two people who could possibly become the next president.

So if you care even a little bit about the people of Gaza, you should vote for Harris.

It's just that when you keep repeating republican talking points, I like to provide a bit of balance.

By the way, I'm not forcing you to engage with me.

I'm not unhappy at my place of employment, I'm mildly unhappy that ceos and shareholders extract the vast majority of the profits from the efforts of workers and want governments to increase taxes and share wealth more equitably.

You seem unhappy with your country. What steps have you taken to emigrate to the USA?

Yeah, Biden isn't perfect and didn't always do the best he could, including on Israel. Did I ever say he was a great president? No. But he's a far, far, far better president than Trump was, and Harris would be a far, far better president than Trump would be, especially on the issue of Gaza.

I didn't think I was shouting loudly at all. I'm no more shouting about socialised healthcare than you're shouting about low taxes.

They look at the budget: we want to spend X on this employee.

Lol. That is not how budget meetings work. That isn't even how salary negotiations work.

You persist in believing that if costs reduce, wages rise, but this is not how businesses operate. When costs decrease, profits rise, executive bonuses rise, but it's really rare that employee pay rises as a result, and as I keep telling you, it's hopelessly naive to think that a massive tax cut for businesses would result in a massive pay rise for employees.

On the other hand, socialised healthcare is about half the cost as privatised healthcare is in the USA. You save on your taxes, but then you pay twice as much to health insurance companies who then refuse to treat you anyway. It's really, really, really bad value for money and horrendously expensive.

But your idea that companies pay people more when they pay less taxes is hopelessly naive. If you cut employer contributions in Belgium, the people who would get the spare money would be the shareholders and the ceos.

Famously McDonald's and the pile pay their employees far, far less in America than in Scandinavia, but the burgers are very very similar in price.

If you reduce costs for employers, wages do not go up. There is zero wage inflationary pressure from increased profits. How can you not know this?

You foolishly seem to believe that wages are held down by taxes! No! Wages are held down by ceos and shareholders!

That was sarcasm.

So you even acknowledge that Biden negotiated a ceasefire deal that Trump phoned his pal Netanyahu to tell him to reject?

Do you even acknowledge that Trump called himself the best King of Israel?

Do you acknowledge that Trump promised to set the military on left wingers in the USA?

Do you acknowledge that Trump is a 34 time concocted felon?

Do you acknowledge that it is the republicans who openly call for Israel to "finish the job" in Gaza?

Do you acknowledge that Trump would be much worse for Palestine than Kamala?

Probably you'll ignore most if not all of that and dig up something that isn't really Kamala's fault. That's what you always do. Every time. Just like Trump wants you to. You're his servant, whatever you tell yourself and others about your independence. You're not. You're just selling his lines.

When I see the job with my skills where the ceo doesn't take most of the money I earn, I'll be sure to apply and look up my old comments to tell you that you were right, but I would still want socialised healthcare because it's much cheaper and has better health outcomes and I won't have to remortgage the house if my Mum needs expensive treatment.

Did I ever say 5%? In Belgium it turns out it's 13% of your paycheck flat payment and then it's free. Sounds like a massive, massive win. We should do like them for healthcare.

Oh yes of course, because everything you said was fair, balanced, non-misleading and good advice for people who care.

Why rather pay twice for healthcare when you can pay once, it doesn't matter what illness you get, and no one has to remortgage their house to keep their relative alive?