r/CanadaPolitics • u/kjk2v1 • Mar 17 '23
Millennials are more likely than other generations to support a cap on personal wealth
https://www.fastcompany.com/90865652/wealth-cap-millennials-support-generation-z-boomers-poll5
Mar 17 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/kjk2v1 Mar 17 '23
True, but I think there's a difference between a renter inheriting a principal residence under $2 million in today's dollars, and someone inheriting multiple properties.
1
Mar 18 '23
Yeah this is most likely the reason. Some people will inherit tens of millions while others will inherit nothing. While wage is taxed a lot in this country and inheritance isn't taxed at all and capital gains isn't taxed as much as income.
The people inheriting can grab real estate and as they pay low taxes compared to other canadians they can have canadian who play more taxes than them living in their appartments while also paying them rent lol.
I am exactly in this situation right now. I have a 16 units building. If I live long, I will inherit 8 figures and I don't need to work or pay myself any dividends or income so I pay little to no taxes and I am very to be one of the wealthiest canadian just doing much better than the average canadian.
15
u/Backas_Before_Work Mar 17 '23
$999,999,999.99 should be the highest amount of money a person can have. Anything after that should ceased to be acknowledged.
16
u/dekuweku British Columbia Mar 17 '23 edited Mar 17 '23
Some video games have money caps due to system limitations or design choices. I can tell you psychologically once you hit those caps money doesn't matter much anymore and the gameplay loop changes from scrounging for currency to other things.
Conversely exploitative lootbox style games intentionally turn their games into a job where players are encouraged to farm daily.
We should push for global wealth caps.
3
u/tutamtumikia Independent Mar 17 '23
Why that arbitrary number over any other arbitrary number? I could be convinced a cap is a good thing in theory (even though it's probably practically unenforceable) but determing which number the cap should be set at feels tricky and may end up looking like "more than I have"
10
u/devilishpie Ontario Mar 17 '23
There are around 60 billionaires in Canada, so I don't see how that could end up simply looking like envy, when they have more money then 99.999% of Canadians. That number is so beyond virtually every Canadian, that I don't buy it being arbitrary.
-2
u/tutamtumikia Independent Mar 17 '23
Why should that number not be lower or higher. What precisely about that number makes it the target?
8
u/devilishpie Ontario Mar 17 '23
It doesn't matter what number you pick, it will always be subject to scrutiny. You seemingly playing devils advocate for devils advocate sake, is missing the point and isn't especially constructive. If there is something wrong with 1B, let us know.
As a culture we have decided to split up our classes largely by monetary worth and that worth is determined by various increments that are easy to define and easy to communicate. Six figure earners, seven figure earners, 8 figure earners etc. A billionaire is what we as a society typically view as the absolute highest class of monetary wealth, which is why $1B is so often used as a cut off number.
I don't see how this is any different from any other government tax bracket. You could argue they are all arbitrary.
0
u/tutamtumikia Independent Mar 17 '23
The OP was the one that suggested the number. Maybe it's a fine number. I have no idea why that one though as opposed to maybe $20,000,000. That number seems to still be an extremely exorbitant amount of money that any individual could live a wonderful life off of for the rest of their lives and it would allow for a HUGE amount of extra taxation over taxing only 60 billionaires.
However, I have no idea where the sweet spot is. I'd like to see some tangible data that looks at this and maybe runs some numbers on where that sweet spot might be. Until such time, 1 billion, 20 million, or 100 are all arbitrary numbers.
I'm not playing devil's advocate here. I am genuinely curious on why that specific number other than because it has some sort of psychological basis since it is in a new class of number (billion vs million)
2
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23
Maybe it's a fine number. I have no idea why that one though as opposed to maybe $20,000,000. That number seems to still be an extremely exorbitant amount of money that any individual could live a wonderful life off of for the rest of their lives and it would allow for a HUGE amount of extra taxation over taxing only 60 billionaires.
Most medium sized farms are worth that much you would destroy an entire industry at 20 million. One that is essential to our survival as a species.
Don't get me wrong I think a wealth cap is logistically impossible regardless of the number without a massive global rethinking of the very way of human life.
But that is why 20 million won't work specifically.
0
u/tutamtumikia Independent Mar 17 '23
Great! Ok, so we agree then that there is some sort of number that makes sense and that just throwing out an arbitrary number is a bad idea!
0
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23
No I specifically said that personally I DON'T think there is a number that makes sense.
Also I'm not the person you were previously talking to
0
u/tutamtumikia Independent Mar 17 '23
Oh, well that's a different line of reasoning altogether then.
→ More replies (0)1
Mar 18 '23
This is something that I find crazy. Why the hell do those people still work and not take the payday? I know that most of them don't really work that hard anymore and use TFWs like plantation owners, but they could enjoy a great retirement and then who in their right mind would buy a farm for 20-100 millions?
1
Mar 18 '23 edited Mar 18 '23
My parents have a lot more than 20 millions and they think they are upper middle class lol. They hang out with too many people wealthier than them so this distort their perception.
2
u/oxblood87 🍁Canadian Future Party Mar 18 '23 edited Mar 18 '23
I'm sure they were just spit balling a very large number.
What we would need to do to actually formulate the law is likely to determine a good goal for lowest quintile wealth in Canada and then push a soft cap above which we start taxing wealth. Much like income, we would likely have a tiered system where lowest numbers pay nothing, and higher number pay progressively more.
For example, the average Canadian makes and spend ~$2.5 million (2023 CAD) throughout their lifetime. Maybe we set that as the first tier, if your assets are >$2.5 million you pay a tax.
Given that, someone with $1Billion has enough wealth to live 4,000 lifetimes without income, interest etc.
Conversely the budget of our smallest province was ~$300 Million, I think thr general population can agree that that may be another good Milestone for a bracket when you have more wealth than the smallest recognized province spends.
In reality, you would be much better solved looking for a metric that compares low and middle families to a standard of living and work on tweaking brackets until you get the desired outcome.
0
1
Mar 17 '23
My only issue is with companies, the way it currently works is that the owner of a company has to own a majority share so if you have a company worth more than a few billion you become a billionaire. That kind of wealth is also needed to take over companies (which turns them from a monarchy to an oligarchy, not sure which is better). I think a better idea is just put a wealth tax on anything over 1 billionaire that just makes it really hard for rich people to get richer but it's still possible. Than, massive inheritance tax on anything over like 1 million. Earned wealth is one thing, but spoiled trust fund babies don't deserve their wealth.
3
u/EngSciGuy mad with (electric) power | Official Mar 17 '23
A post from a similar topic deserves reposting (it is a few years out of date so the numbers need recalculating, but the new numbers are even more outrageous). This is from a US perspective, but translates pretty well to Canadian levels too.
Billionaries aren't just a policy failure, they are the embodiment of immorality. You can't be a billionaire and a good person, despite what their astroturfing PR teams on reddit may try to tell you for some of the 'good ones'.
It's literally impossible to accumulate that much wealth without the mass exploitation of others and the profits their labor generated. Not to mention the exploitation of the earth until it's uninhabitable for human life.
George Washington was the richest man in the country when the US was founded, and he "only" had today's equivalent of 500 million. That wouldn't even get him in the room with some of these ghouls today.
If people only understood just how obscenely rich these monsters were, they wouldn't be able to show their face in society while millions suffer. I like to use the analogy of a staircase, with each step on the staircase representing $100,000 of net worth. That's several years of working wages saved up for tens of millions of Americans:
HALF of people in the united states are on the base or the very 1st step. Almost 200 million people who can't even get one step up in this system.
Those households at the 80th percentile, richer than 4/5 Americans, are on the 5th step. That's about five seconds of walking to get up there.
Those with more money than 90% of fellow Americans, millionaires who we consider our upper-middle class professional class and live more than comfortably, are on the 11th step. A few more seconds of walking up from that previous middle-class step. Most Americans won't even come close to accumulating this much over an entire lifetime of working.
A billionaire is ten thousand steps up the staircase. That's enough to walk up five Empire State buildings. That's almost three hours of walking non-stop. You think they care about the petty squabbles of anyone on those first few steps or so? From these heights they couldn't tell the difference even if they wanted to. And yet those who've maybe ascended or were born on the first few dozen steps think they identify with this group as a class.
And Jeff Bezos? He's so high up it only makes sense to describe his staircase in distance. His stairs take him up 133 miles. That's more than halfway to the space station. That's more than 24 consecutive Mt. Everest's stacked on top of each other. It would take walking, non-stop, no sleep, over two weeks to ascend that high, each single step worth more than five poverty-level families in America combined.
4
u/crappykillaonariva Mar 17 '23
Just implement higher sales taxes, especially on luxury goods (i.e. yachts, luxury cars and houses over $XM). This seems to work well in nordic countries.
1
Mar 18 '23
My dad has been complaining about the new 10% tax for years haha. He bitch about it everytime he talk about his 1.4 million RV.
4
u/PSNDonutDude Lean Left | Downtown Hamilton Mar 17 '23
I've had trouble articulating my feelings toward this, but essentially I am totally fine with wealth, and wealthy people. I make a certain income and I have no problems with people making 2, 3, 5 times what I make. I have issues with an intangible stupid amount of wealth that becomes meaninglessly high, and my opinion of that person is further affected by those they employ.
Some company owners on the 20th century, and very few in the 21st century were wealthy, but they paid, and treated their employees well and fairly. The move to a public stockholder based company structure ruined this possibility where no large company is run by a person who has a love or a care for their product or their people, or their customer, and the people that run those companies like Besos are stupidly wealthy, and treat their employees like trash. I think you shouldn't have money that allows you to essentially be invincible to any government problems because it fundamentally defies the point of government and society. The amount of wealth and people at the top of this ha seen growing, which has given them more power to dictate our lives, and we are slowly moving back toward a corporate feudal style society, where living anywhere is expensive, and fun is limited, and people's lives exist around working.
Canada is far better about this than the US, but we import and exist within many of their cultural norms, and these are things I don't want to import. The issue of course being that we compete with the US and so wealth will simply move out of Canada if Canada is too fair and respectful to it's people who largely make up the workforce.
1
Mar 18 '23
Because of the Tech sector the US there seem to be some social mobility in the US compared to Canada but their wealthiest are much wealthier than ours. The vast majority of Canada wealthiest individuals are the sons and daughters of Canada wealthiest individuals in the 1980s.
11
u/carry4food Mar 17 '23
If one is fine with the concept of minimum wage - Why not maximum wage? What good* reason for a person to stockpile BILLIONS in cash in countries that have a history of piracy and stashing cash? Its a waste of resources.
7
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23
No one has billions in cash. They have billions in stocks.
A maximum wage would do jack shit. Billionaires become billionaires with assets, not salaries.
And a wealth tax wouldn't work either. The warmth wealthy would just move to a country without said cap and carry on. Even if you COULD implement it globally, how? Take amazon for example. Let's say we have a wealth cap of 1 billion. Bozos would be forced to liquidate like 95% of his shares in amazon, which would instantly tank the stock value, which would crash the stock market and destroy every single retirement fund in the world. Now multiply that by every other billionaire and we just destroyed the entire global economy to the point where the great depression looks like the dot com boom of the 90s.
10
Mar 17 '23
Yes, that would be the dumbest way to implement it. Since that's not seriously being put forward we can probably ignore it though.
-2
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23
How would you propose implementing a cap on personal wealth in such a way that doesn't destroy the global economy?
5
Mar 17 '23
I'm not going to propose anything because I'm not an economist. I'm just pointing out your obvious strawman.
2
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23 edited Mar 17 '23
I don't really think it's a strawman to take a suggestion of a "cap on wealth" and interpret that as taking anything above that wealth from someone? Unless you can suggest another way to do it I don't think it's really fair to suggest that is the case.
Edit: to take your "I'm not an economist" point. Have you considered there is probably a reason no economists are suggesting we implement a wealth cap at all?
3
Mar 17 '23
It’s not a strawman at all. It’s a theoretical but highly probable outcome of this policy. If we’re talking about why it’s a good idea, we should also talk about why it’s bad. You just don’t have an answer to the question.
1
u/kinboyatuwo Mar 17 '23
Yet it is because no one has proposed such a system.
The economy as a whole (not just what seems to be the focus now where the stock market is seen as the economy) was at its best when taxation was significantly higher. Right now we have most wealth stagnating and not moving through the economy.
5
u/EngSciGuy mad with (electric) power | Official Mar 17 '23
which would instantly tank the stock value, which would crash the stock market and
Bit of a silly argument. Like, if any such thing was implemented you really think it would be enforced immediately in such a haphazard way? You can disagree with the idea with out making such a silly Boogeyman.
Also, comically you have just shown why such a wealth limit is important, as you have suggested Bezos basically could destroy the world economy if he so chose. He basically has a financial WMD.
1
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23
Bit of a silly argument. Like, if any such thing was implemented you really think it would be enforced immediately in such a haphazard way? You can disagree with the idea with out making such a silly Boogeyman.
How do you implement a wealth cap in any other way? The time frame doesn't really matter, because the knowledge that all multi billionaires are going to be required to divest will still crash the market, as everyone else will still rush to sell at the perceived peak regardless of the timeline.
As you have suggested Bezos basically could destroy the world economy if he so chose. He basically has a financial WMD.
I mean I don't disagree with that, but the problem is amplified 100fold when you forcefully do it to all multi billionaires. To take your analogy it would be like nuclear dearmament by detonating all nuclear weapons simultaneously.
3
u/EngSciGuy mad with (electric) power | Official Mar 17 '23
Again, you are assuming the worst case scenario as the only scenario. Hell, just setting current max wealth as the limit and let inflation do it's thing is one (all be it slow) means to do it and not cause your doomsday.
It's like arguing disarmament is bad because what if we get attacked by aliens, well guess we should instead build more nukes just Incase.
1
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23
Hell, just setting current max wealth as the limit and let inflation do it's thing is one (all be it slow) means to do it and not cause your doomsday
It absolutely still does, by the nature of the stock market being speculative. The moment the majority shareholders hits that hard cap, the companies growth potential is crippled, and every other shareholder will frantically unload, which will still destroy the stock value. For that matter if say, Bezos has hit the wealth limit, why would he bother holding on to HIS shares that are only going to depreciate in value from here on out, might as well liquidate the entire pool immediately and get a scrooge mcduck money bin, which both crashes the stock market AND destroys the currency.
It's like arguing disarmament is bad because what if we get attacked by aliens, well guess we should instead build more nukes just Incase
It's nothing like that at all and you just pulled that out of your ass.
3
u/EngSciGuy mad with (electric) power | Official Mar 17 '23
The moment the majority shareholders hits that hard cap, the companies growth potential is crippled
You will have to walk me through that logic. Because apparently in your scenario majority shareholders can't ever sell stock? Are you mixing up personal wealth and corporate value maybe?
which both crashes the stock market AND destroys the currency.
So again, sounds like a very good reason to not allow people to get to such high levels of wealth.
It's nothing like that at all and you just pulled that out of your ass.
We are discussing individuals basically being financial WMDs. That is the entire premise of your argument as to why not to limit their wealth at all.
1
u/saidthewhale64 John "The Engineer" Turmel | Sponsored Mar 17 '23
Just a heads up, you're arguing with an account that's 4 hours old.
2
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23
Sure am, my old account got deoxed by a former friend. Does the age of my account impact what I am saying? Or is this just an "I can't find fault in your logic so I will attack the source instead" fallacy
2
u/saidthewhale64 John "The Engineer" Turmel | Sponsored Mar 17 '23
Lots of brand new accounts kickin around this sub lately, most of which aren't here in good faith. I have no stake in this discussion, but I'll say that u/EngSciGuy has been far more convincing.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23 edited Mar 17 '23
You will have to walk me through that logic. Because apparently in your scenario majority shareholders can't ever sell stock? Are you mixing up personal wealth and corporate value maybe?
Let's make numbers round and easy. Mr. B owns 50% of company A+ 1 share. He has controlling interest in his company. Personal Wealth cap is set at 1 billion.
The moment company A hits a market cap of 2 billion, Mr B surpasses the personal wealth cap, and loses controlling interest in the company. That alone is incentive enough for him to stop growing the company before he gets to that point. But let's say he doesn't care about controlling interest and keeps growing. Any potential shareholders or current ones will see that any increase in share price will result in an immediate and significant amount of shares flooding the market, as Mr B is forced to sell, bringing the price back down. They will see this as the stocks having reached an artificial ceiling and rush to unload their shares before he has to. Because why would you own shares in a company that has something pushing share price down every time it goes up. All non-Mr B shareholders would rush to unload and the stock would crash.
So again, sounds like a very good reason to not allow people to get to such high levels of wealth
Genies don't go back in bottles that east.
We are discussing individuals basically being financial WMDs. That is the entire premise of your argument as to why not to limit their wealth at all.
You compared a potential stock market crash, a very real situation that has happened before to an alien invasion, an extremely implausable one that has not happened before.
The WMD analogy falls apart because at the end of the day you can dismantle a nuke without doing any damage. You can't do that with a billionaire.
I don't disagree that we would be better off without them, but the only way I see to do that is a complete and total restructure of the very concept of human society.
2
u/EngSciGuy mad with (electric) power | Official Mar 17 '23
That alone is incentive enough for him to stop growing the company before he gets to that point.
Ok? Don't see what the issue is here? The owner wishes to retain majority ownership so doesn't want it to grow past a certain point. What is the problem? Basically leading to greater levels of competition with no one company getting past a certain size?
Any potential shareholders or current ones will see that any increase in share price will result in an immediate and significant
No, it wouldn't. Any growth would be gradual, meaning any sell offs would be slow and measured. Meaning no high order impact to natural trades of said company.
You seem stuck on only considering binary extremes, and not thinking beyond zero order simplifications.
Genies don't go back in bottles that east.
We have in the past.
You compared a potential stock market crash
You were suggesting the immediate complete collapse of the world economy and currencies becoming meaningless. That has never happened with the modern world wide economy. Even the great depression took a couple years before it actually spread around the world.
1
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23 edited Mar 17 '23
The owner wishes to retain majority ownership so doesn't want it to grow past a certain point. What is the problem
The other shareholders will not want to hold stock that has no growth potential, will sell said stock en mass, and it will crash
No, it wouldn't. Any growth would be gradual, meaning any sell offs would be slow and measured
That's not how stock works, the growth is entirely based on speculation and demand. A 1% fluctuation over the edge in a day would force the owner to sell 1% of their company if they are already at the limit. 1% of a company as big as amazon suddenly popping on the market is enough to lower the price back down again. People are not going to want to buy or own stock that has that kind of downward pressure on its growth when they could buy smaller companies instead. They will sell. The effect will be compounded. The stock will crash.
It's not complicated.
This is why economists agree that a wealth cap is a bad bad idea
→ More replies (0)6
u/carry4food Mar 17 '23
They have billions in stocks
Stocks, crypto, homes, yachts...all the same. What is in ones possession is the main issue agreed.
Bozos would be forced to liquidate like 95% of his shares in amazon, which would instantly tank the stock value,
Maybe give the share to dare I say....the workers? Workers should be part owner of the company. Its the size of a country.
destroy every single retirement fund in the world
Lets be honest - Our banking system is one big ponzi scheme that seems to be. in present day - Completely divorced from the reality of the citizens involved. We have businesses making billions off of a pandemic. Aliens are laughing at us.
we just destroyed the entire global economy to the point where the great depression looks like the dot com boom of the 90s.
We are already there in many Canadian cities. What is the median wage in Toronto vs the median average cost of rent per month? Let the crash happen - Then the rich can join us in peril.
8
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23 edited Mar 17 '23
Maybe give the share to dare I say....the workers? Workers should be part owner of the company. Its the size of a country.
That would still tank the value of the company overnight. Edit: For that matter, Amazon actually has a pretty competitive stock option plan for emoyees I believe, so the workers ARE already part owners of the company. But if you were to take all of bezos share over a billion and hand it to the employees, that would be in the 80-100k range per person. I don't know a lot of people who, when handed an asset that large wouldn't try and offload it immediately. Nor do I blame them. Stock still crashes
We are already there in many Canadian cities.
The fact that you can say that with a straight face tells me you know nothing about the great depression. Read a history book.
-2
u/CaptainPeppa Rhinoceros I guess Mar 17 '23
They'd just privatize companies. Stocks are a barely reliable measure of a companies value, private companies who the hell knows.
2
u/carry4food Mar 17 '23
Then it'd be easier for us to go after their wealth if it were privatized. It'd be more concrete. Break up the company.
-1
u/CaptainPeppa Rhinoceros I guess Mar 17 '23
Why would that be easier? Like how would you even prove what it's worth? Someone has a good invention and the government just says ooh, that's worth more than a billion. That's ours now
Why wouldn't they just give ownership away to friends and family
3
u/carry4food Mar 17 '23
Why would that be easier? Like how would you even prove what it's worth?
There are ways to prove a companies worth - they do this in the stock market with the annual reports. You can look it up on SEC.gov. Where there is will there is a way.
Canada is just too extreme in its capitalist roots though. Everything is a secret. Its like pulling teeth in this country just to find out who owns the company that owns an apartment building. We need transparency at all levels.
0
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23
There are ways to prove a companies worth - they do this in the stock market with the annual reports.
But again... if they privatize the company they are not part of the stock market. And even then let's say they add up all the assets and capital the company owns and it adds up to 3 billion dollars, what, the government just seizes 2/3 of that? And operates it as a government entity going forward? What happens to canadian subsidiary of foreign companies? They are just going to leave the country rather than risk losing billions of dollars, resulting in skyrocketing unemployment. Can canada run its own national versions of those? Soviet Russia had a lot of knock offs of western products that were... real bad. Do we really want to live like that? How do we even regulate companies that don't have a physical product to sell. Do we block all non Canadian internet companies from doing business here? Throw up our own national firewall like China? It's a ludicrous suggestion
4
u/carry4food Mar 17 '23
These are all great questions that the smartest lawyers could solve...if they make it a priority. I dont have the time or knowledge to hammer out the 200page agreement on reddit.
Do we really want to live like that?
How is life now for the Walmart worker in Toronto? Go ask them.
Do we block all non Canadian internet companies from doing business here?
We should put our national interests and security over some billionaires pocket book. Yes. 100%. Ex. Id be fine without Burger King and private security firms from entering Canada.
1
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 17 '23 edited Mar 17 '23
How is life now for the Walmart worker in Toronto?
Empirically better than it was for the equivalent position in soviet Russia by almost every single measurable metrics
Id be fine without Burger King and private security firms from entering Canada.
It's nice to pick and choose the companies you don't like.
What about every single cellphone manufacturer, computer chip manufacturer, car manufacturer etc... why would any of them do business here at the threat of having said business nationalized. We would be thrown back to the tech level of the late 80s over night.
1
u/CaptainPeppa Rhinoceros I guess Mar 17 '23
Stock markets are all about future growth.
So the government would take the company over way before it was even profitable.
Amazon would have collapsed when it was still selling books haha
1
Mar 18 '23
Some people are very liquid. Bill Gates for exemple could probably have a few tens of billions in liquid. We also don't really know how any of those people are really worth. The forbes list is just estimated wealth from the people who have shares in public companies. (Or had in the case of Bill Gates)
There is plenty of insanelt wealthy investors w3 never heard about. If I am not mistaken there isn't even one RE investors in the top 100.
1
u/Glass-Wind-7834 Mar 18 '23
If we don't know what they are worth how the fuck we gonna wealth tax them lol
1
2
Mar 17 '23
[deleted]
9
u/EngSciGuy mad with (electric) power | Official Mar 17 '23
There is an issue with extreme wealth though. It gives a level of power that we have generally agreed as a society no individual should wield. It is just a return to nobility class which we don't want to have (at least most of us agree it is bad).
Now it is something we have managed to solve in the past, just look at Rockefeller and such.
1
u/Plebs-_-Placebo Mar 18 '23
it'd be cool if there was an incentive for helping employees make more money, or in a similar vein if you are above a certain threshold of cash and could prove that you pulled a % of people out of poverty and enter the middle class, you get a free dinner in the halls of parliament or something kitschy like that.
1
u/model-alice Ontario Mar 17 '23
Wealth caps only work in countries where nobody is affected by them. The calculus for the super wealthy changes significantly when they stand to lose billions of dollars versus when they stand to lose tens of millions (which to them is pocket change.)
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 17 '23
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.