The response is completely negative because the suggestion is just insane.
I'm a black man from a black neighborhood. We like Joe Biden. When Joe speaks freely without preparation, he makes racists and tone-deaf comments continuously. Sometimes they are really horrible. We don't care because we understand the era he comes from and we understand the difference between intentional and unintentional. He has evolved at least little and aspires to do more. Perfect is the enemy of good.
We know that when programmers talk about master/slave, they don't even think about slavery. It's just damn good metaphor. I might get fleeting negative association but I'm not offended. Offense is taken, not given. No need to disarm the world from strong metaphors just to show others that we are not racist.
Racism is power structures, not in innocent use of metaphors.
>You just literally recommended it for an item of tangible personal property,
Yes. We all write somewhat inaccurately and carelessly in discussion groups. Instead of nitpicking each other, we should try to read each other favorably.
What I mean is that there is classes of tangibles from pots and pans that one commentators was worried about into paintings worth of millions. It's concealable that at some valuations artifacts worth of millions are considered different asset classes.
As I said, there is no reason to extend tax to personal property. If poor people owns something valuable, they stop being poor when wealthy people take it.
The distinction between personal property or personal possessions and private property is important to make and the line must be drawn.
Is there a reason why sentimental value should not be taxed?
I mean, you would not extend the taxation to personal holdings with little value or moderate value (automatic tax deduction of $2,000 per person from COST would probably be enough) but if someone wants to keep something very valuable for sentimental reasons, why the feeling should not have a value put on it?
COST model popularized by Glen Weyl and Eric Posner would be perfect tax for these kind of assets. COST is a form of Harberger Tax that ensures that the t property is more productively utilized by the society.
This is how COST works:
1. The owner can determine what the value of the asset is. They can over or underestimate the value as much as they want.
2. The owner pays some percentage of that valuation as tax. If they value the asset very low, they pay very little taxes.
3. The catch. Anyone can buy the property at any time at the owner determined valuation. If you don't want anyone to buy your assets, you must value it more than other people and and pay taxes for the value.
EDIT:
It seems that many people think that COST type private property tax would extend to personal property or could be applied without modification to housing for poor people etc. Personal possessions are not taxed in any place of the world and tax deduction make sure that small personal properties can be owned without paying tax.
As a outsider I have never understood how the Google culture can work for long term.
It looks like there are platforms where informal power is gained or lost without responsibility. People who are active or vocal or member in informal groups and cliques may get into positions where they can influence corporate decision making or HR policy. Yet they are not responsible or chosen by their peers to represent them.
Damore case is good example. Allowing random individual to soapbox is not the right way to implement workplace democracy or openness in my opinion. If you want to involve workers in workplace democracy, you better have a organization for it where issues can be separated from people.
I'm assume that you say 'only two options' as a rhetorical device to deny the validity of third option. It's different thing to say that worker activism is not proper than saying that it's not effective. I think your opinion is former but you try to argue the latter.
Creating larger bargaining unit from current employers is more effective than working as an individual. As these big tech companies have increasing number of workers who do not fear losing their job, it will create political power that is most effectively used collectively withing companies. This can work as traditional unions or just plain political activist groups.
> Despite numerous discussions across multiple teams and organisations, no one at Apple has ever heard of this investigation.
If this is some kind of ongoing national security issue with nondisclosure requirement authorized by the Director of the FBI, like this big breach could be, people involved are not allowed to talk about it even inside their company.
Of course it would be advisable to inform higher ups in the Apple so that they would not issue a denial.