u/YogurtclosetOpen3567

I cannot find it

Angel of Death loophole, GRAT loophole, life insurance loophole, Family Limited Partnerships, Charitable Loophole etc etc is this even a real tax?

If the money is mostly going to the stock market, would it be put back into the economy?

And what would happen if that occured, would that lead to more economic boom or economic loss

1. ⁠It compares a supposedly designed thing (life) to other supposedly designed things (the rest of the world), and concludes that because A looks more designed than B, it's equally designed to B.

2. ⁠I haven't tested this in the wild, but i like this one:

To draw a parallel, people used to know about fire as a source of heat and light, but not about nuclear fusion as a cause of these same two effects: and so in those days people quite sensibly based their reasoning on the idea that the Sun was a fire, since it resembled one. We might call this the Argument from Fire. But it would be foolish for someone living today to say: "We know that fire produces heat and light: therefore the Sun is on fire: therefore the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion."

Not only has biology moved on since Paley's day - so has design. It is now commonplace among engineers, computer scientists, and mathematicians not to design complex structures, but rather to hand the problem over to a computer which simulates the processes of reproduction, mutation, and selection to produce a design fit for a given task. Paley in his day could point to a man-made object such as a telescope, and say "It is complex, so it had a designer". Today, even looking at an object we know to be man-made, we cannot make that inference. To resume the parallel with nuclear fusion, the creationists' use of the Argument from Design is like continuing to use the Argument from Fire - even after nuclear fusion has been produced artificially in the laboratory.

Like does the original arabic actually say what the translation says?

Economists warned California not to raise the minimum wage to $20 ($24)

"The results are nowhere as dire as predicted,” Michael Reich, the study author and chair of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at UC Berkeley, told Fortune.

Nearly two years after the law’s passage, economists are seeing very different results than what was initially feared. A working paper from University of California at Berkeley released this month found the policy increased average weekly wages for eligible workers by 11% **and did not reduce employment**. Prices increased modestly, **about 1.5%, or the equivalent of about six cents** for a $4 item.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/economists-warned-california-not-to-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-20-they-were-wrong-in-almost-every-way-so-far-another-economist-says/ar-AA20WZb5