

No it isn’t. Children are not considered mature enough to make legal decisions on their own, so the whole libertarian issue doesn’t apply to them.
No it isn’t. Children are not considered mature enough to make legal decisions on their own, so the whole libertarian issue doesn’t apply to them.
Agreed, some murders and rapists get less than 5% of this sentence. The issue is consecutive jail terms where one “big crime” is cut into many crimes so that each adds to the total.
What about the planned economy that learns from the previous one’s mistakes? Or the one after that?
Based on all the past experiments, they all fail.
Every person and company has complex needs and desires and ultimately, it’s impossible for a central authority to fully anticipate and manage that over the size of a nation, because the quantity of parameters and unknown is almost infinite. Heck I don’t even know what I’ll want to eat for dinner!
Without even diving into the issue of concentrating so much power into a single hand. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Let me give you an overly simplified example. You are in a property market where rental yield is 3% (happens in some cities)
You could put a million dollar into buying a house and save $30k in rent every year
or
You could rent a million dollar house for $30k, and invest your million dollar in the market at 7%, returning $70k per year
Obviously this gets more complicated with mortgages, taxes, maintenance, interest rates, etc. but the gist of it is that owning your home always comes with an opportunity cost, every dollar of house equity is a dollar that isn’t invested somewhere else. Depending on circumstances, renting might be the most economical choice.
What you forget is the cost of opportunity: the money that is stuck in a house is money that would yield income if it was invested somewhere else. Long term stock markets typically return 7%+, while rental return (or the rent you save by buying) can be anywhere from 3 to 7% depending on market, minus maintenance and other holding costs.
So there’s no fast and hard guarantee that owning or renting is best - you need to run a proper simulation with the right parametres taking everything into account. In markets with low rental returns, renting is typically optimal.
Maintenance cost and property taxes too though.
Looks about right. Those that I have seen on this list were mediocre at best, and a far cry from the quality of the previous movie(s) which would have been fine being left alone.
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.
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.
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 :
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.
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.
I dunno dude, I am just explaining while this move isn’t a contradiction with libertarian ideas.