https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Difference_from_conspiracy

You know that you can own apartments or rent houses?

We do see this in reality sometimes.
When a company leaves, they usually still own the buildings (assuming they didn’t just lease them). Typically they would try to sell them off. It’s not unheard of that a similar company picks up the location and hires back some of the staff.
Think of one supermarket closing shop only for another to open in the same location.

What happens if a company does not sell depends on the country.
When companies left Russia, several stores were continued under new management and afaik some businesses were not sold off but seized. Whether the owners were reimbursed for that seizure I do not know.

All that said, I want to repeat that businesses leave countries usually due to lack of profitability. It has no (rational) link to a personal wealth tax.

Nobody who held this opinion was ever able to even give me a rough idea of an explanation how it should supposedly damage the economy.

Because if you tax the rich, they move away! And that’s clearly bad because…
They take their wealth with them! Just think of all the jewellery that will hang of people’s necks in other countries and all the overpriced art that was never publicly displayed, now not visible elsewhere.
And of course they’ll take all the housing and factories and the land they’re built on, stuff it all in their pockets and fly away with it.

Just think of all the jobs. Not the jobs, companies are already offshoring now, of course.
And ignore that companies make such decisions based on productivity, available infrastructure and supply chain networks.
No, they’ll move to less profitable countries because clearly not paying taxes is more important to rich people than making more money.

And of course, we can’t tax people when they move away, so we shouldn’t tax them to avoid this.

it looks like a giftshop

It does, but I’m not sure if the president turning the White House into a Disneyland gift shop is much better than collecting his own merch.

I mean, at least a two way division between head of state and head of government is pretty common.

Districts each get a seat. That is the part you are not getting.

They do not in the example. The example only knows a single winner.

thus why you think Blue wins it all

I think that blue wins because the example literally tells us that blue wins.

that is NOT how districting and gerrymandering works in the US

And if the infographic said “Gerrymandering as it specifically works in the US only” then that would be relevant.
But it only explains it a general abstract concept. One that can also occur outside the US. This general concept can also occur without US electoral districts that get some seats. It can occur in any voting situation where the overall population is divided into subgroups.

the graphic is a hypothetical that EXPLAINS the real-life situation

Yes, it explains one specific mechanism. Namely changing district shapes to affect the outcome. And the outcome in the example is one color winning.
I do not care how things are in real life, because my comment has nothing to do with the real life situation, only the one depicted here.

Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life

Yes, by changing voting groups in such a way that one party achieves a maximum of individual “wins” to achieve an overall “win”. That is all it shows, there are 50 people split into two colors, five districts and one winner. No seats anywhere.

Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats.

Right, because it it the process of rearranging voting groups to affect the overall outcome and has nothing to do with what the winner gets.
in other words

Gerrymandering, (/ˈdʒɛrimændərɪŋ/ JERR-ee-man-dər-ing, originally /ˈɡɛrimændərɪŋ/ GHERR-ee-man-dər-ing)[1][2] defined in the contexts of representative electoral systems, is the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries to advantage a party, group, or socioeconomic class within the constituency.

or

gerrymandering, in U.S. politics, the practice of drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an advantage over its rivals

or

gerrymandering, noun an occasion when someone in authority changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person

What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party?
I never claimed I knew what a perfect system looked like or that perfection would be possible at all.
I don’t need to know how to solve all problems in the world to tell you that the world is not perfect.

1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?

Ok please take a big red marker or a graphic tool of your choice And draw a circle where on the graphic it SHOWS that red gets anything, besides abstract districts.
If you could highlight the fabled seats, that would certainly convince me that they are shown somewhere.
Whether the districts impart any sort of political influence beyond the tally of which team gets to be the overall winner, depends on completely different factors not part of the graphic.

you are conflating vastly different things

I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.
It only shows how different district shapes affect the outcome of which team “wins”.

You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.

Your example is literally what is being illustrated.

The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams “wins”. In the “perfect” case that is blue.

here is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn’t only one seat they are competing for.

The disconnect being that the above example mentions nothing about the red districts getting anything.
That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.
My comment is based only on what the image shows. I understand that the real world may be different but the real world is not what I am commenting on.

I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.

I don’t criticize the result. I just don’t think it’s perfect.

People here keep telling me the system is bad but it’s the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.

if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way

So, suppose these things were not immutable laws of nature, would a better representation the be possible?
If e.g. the candidates of our rectangle had 5 seats to compete for instead of one?

What do you think “districts” means?

A subsection of a larger unit, here the subsections of a rectangle. What does that have to do with me not guessing what the rectangle represents?

And the U.S. President is not elected like this, no. There is no districting involved in US Presidential elections,

In many states, it is winner take all for that state’s Electors, with the winner being the one with the plurality of votes in a FPTP election

Ok, so there is an election system like the one I criticized in the US, just not in every state.

Some others assign their Electors proportionally.

Would you then say, that this is better than “winner takes all” and that “blue wins” is not perfect?

Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes

So if improvements are possible then the current situation can by definition not be perfect, right?

I just took the graphic literally without trying to guess which body (presumably in the US) this might represent.
If I need more information to understand the implication of this graphic than it imparts on me, then it’s not very informative.

At no point does it imply proportional representation or that blue has a majority in some form of parliament.
So if blue just “wins” then red isn’t represented at all. And I’m pretty sure there are election systems like this, including the US presidential election, or am I mistaken there?

When there is one seat, two parties, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system that inevitably causes the two party divide), yes

So we can agree the system is inherently bad at representation?
Sounds more like that outcome is the “least bad” rather than “perfect”.

Maybe proportional representation instead of winner takes it all?

So, “perfect representation” is when one side wins that does not represent 40% of the votes?

the second-highest marginal tax rate in the EU at 55.4%.

Tax on what, labor income?
Because that is not what the rich live off. On the contrary it makes building wealth harder for the working class.

Also how do you arrive at 55.4%?
All I could find was a marginal income tax rate of up to 45% + an additional 3-4% for incomes over 250k.
https://fr.icalculator.com/income-tax-rates/2025.html
Are you adding social security as well?

insurgencies are a completely different animal

They may not be able to occupy an entire city (without bombing it to the ground) but when they come knocking at your door, if you insurge you’re likely dead.

I meant the literal definition of Muslim, not just Islam.

And what is that supposed to be?
The English definition is a follower of Islam 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

If you take the translation from Arabic "someone in submission to the will and law of God” then I don’t see how that would not apply to religious Jews as well.

So it would really help your argument if you could provide a source that shows any significant meaning of Muslim outside the context of Islam.

Depends on the game.
100 hours in WOW is nothing, 100 hours in Firewatch is mental