She actively plotted and traveled to get revenge and clearly didn’t act in self defense. While it’s easy to be sympathetic to her story, her guilt seems difficult to deny.

The issue with housing is that the supply is limited. If you increase demand and not supply you just increase prices. Giving buyers $25k extra to spend means every home owner is now gonna jack up their selling price by $25k. This is, in the end, a subsidy for existing home-owners. Who already are doing pretty well, thank you very much.

Denying the existence of supply and demand always lead to policy failure. The way to address housing cost is to lower the cost of housing, not make housing more expensive by helping people outbid each others.

This actually makes houses more expensive, because now buyers have more money to outbid each other.

They aren’t really, they are just upgrading it to a full set top box and rebranding it.

Nah they are “illegal migrants”. There are places you can go and some you can’t and that applies to everyone. There’s a wide gap between “compassion” and “free for all anything goes”.

Intel has also made a similar blunder by trying GPUs and abandoning them (they got there early with the i740, then Larrabee). Saving a few dollars by gutting emerging products line has cost them billions

Oh please explain to me how marginal rates work… 🙄

If your marginal tax rate is already 30% and you decide to earn an extra $1, that $1 will be taxed at 30% and you get $0.70 in your pocket. That’s what “marginal” means.

“Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue” is already a stupid statement, and is Tautologically contradictory

It’s not. If you work 40h per week and can do overtime but that overtime is taxed at 100% (because yes, that’s what marginal rate means, it’s the rate the extra income will be taxed), virtually nobody will bother doing that overtime. The handful who do will probably not clock-in because anyway, there’s no point since it will bring no income after taxation.

You can’t because the French Constitution and Human Rights guarantee the right to private property and a fair and proportional taxation. And that’s likely similar all over the western world.

If your wealth is from owning a portfolio of apartment buildings, good luck taking those with you.

Sell it to a holding company incorporated abroad. Own shares of that holding company instead.

And only the US actually collects on it, because they are so at the heart of the financial world they can strongarm banks to report on their US clients.

Exit taxes are “one shot”. You pay them when you move out and then enjoy a lower taxation level for the rest of your life. Not much of a deterrent, at best a last ditch attempt at grabbing a few more dollars as your highest tax payers leave.

It’s not. If you accept that :

• Taxing at 0% brings no tax revenue
• Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue

Then you accept that between those two extremes there’s a tax optimum that for a given rate gives the most tax revenue. This is the Laffer curve.

That was only on earned income and with a starting point so high that at some point only one person ever reached it.

I think so, but with ads just like the free tier of Spotify.

And then YouTube Premium is just not a good deal in my eyes, £12.99 a month is an awful lot to pay just to not see Ads.

I think this includes YouTube music (at least in my market it does) which makes it fairly good value for money if you already subscribe to a music streaming app.

But worse for those looking for a rental.

Rent control is a bandaid on a real problem that makes things worse long term. What California needs is build more, which means end the NIMBY and unfreeze property taxes so those seating on underutilized land are forced to develop it or sell.