“Beyond any doubt” would mean abolishing it. It is an impossible standard
Any case held to the standard of “beyond any doubt” would be trivially defended. It is theoretically possible we’re all in the matrix and the whole case was just faked by our all-powerful machine overlords. Is the doubt reasonable? No. Is it a doubt? Yes
I’m in favor of abolishing the death penalty. We shouldn’t do it with roundabout semantics and sham trials though
Just because some people call it a wealth tax does not mean we should perpetuate the micsonception
It’s an income tax on high earners, and objectively not a wealth tax no matter how many people call it that
They aren’t saying it because they really want to pay more taxes
They’re saying a system should be put in place where the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes
It’s a subtle but important distinction
Sam was fired because the board stated he withheld information and misinformed them, not because he was a bad CEO
Homes don’t generate value though. Nothing more is being created by them existing. How can it possibly be an investment generating more wealth when the underlying asset remains unchanged?
It’s just a pyramid scheme to expect the same exact home to continue going up in value as an investment. The only possible result is a shortage of housing with unreasonably high prices
Are there test kits that could differentiate the two? Wouldn’t they both just test positive for amphetamines?
Or are you suggesting it to check for other drugs such as fentanyl?