We could look at things like terrorist attacks in the last fifty years. Or we could look at things like the UK where Muslims end up in large amounts.
None of that adds up to “more dangerous than Islam”. All you have done is shown a threat; not a relative threat.
Does this include her congressional pension?
Buffett stepped down
Bernie never really worked—just was a gadfly in the senate
You get less of what you punish
If the argument is “he used more and therefore he should pay more for his use,” then that leads not to progressive tax but to benefits based tax. Take road capacity. Charge tolls for road usage. That’s almost certainly less than Elon’s taxes.
Re public education, the whole concept is to build skills. People have gotten compensated for those skills. Those laborers pay taxes (as does Elon). Why would you think Elon has taken out more from the system of tax dollars directed to higher education as opposed to given more back? Indeed, isn’t it the opposite? The person who uses that education and becomes a Redditor owes society a lot of money. Someone who richly employs a bunch of college graduates doesn’t owe society anything.
Re waste — we can do sinking funds.
Yes and they passed an amendment to make it constitutional. Good luck getting the wealth tax amendment passed.
I don’t think the computer business was bankrupt. The iMac saved it.
That’s literally punishing success.
I find this unreasonable. Yes, Musk benefited from a capitalist system. But so did literally everyone else. Nothing stopped you or your neighbor from doing what Musk did. The difference is he did it and you didn’t. And because of that, you want to punish him? Why are you envious?
Moreover, this “you didn’t build it” theory collapses of its own weight. The argument seems to be society enabled this collection of wealth and therefore society has an unconditional claim to the entirety of the wealth. But of course, society “didn’t build that” either. So now we have to split ownership and figure out how much society is owed.
And society is owed very little because Elon has already made society massively better off than simply 1.3 trillion. Besides the large taxes he has already paid, he has brought along a ton of American workers paying them handsomely and making thousands of millionaires and giving a comfortable life to many not millionaires. Also he makes a really cool car that millions love. There is consumer surplus there.
The whole concept behind a market economy is the belief that businesses make the world on net better for all. Sure the business leader may reap individually the most rewards from a business but that doesn’t mean they reap the most rewards in the aggregate.
This tall poppy syndrome is death.
The whole point of starship is to radically reduce the cost per ton of putting things into space. You are acting like the Falcon Heavy is the end result.
I think you aren’t being imaginative enough re Starlink.
-
First you have airlines, remote worksites, cruises, and other uses. Those prices can increase over time once customers get used to and thus demand the good.
-
You have areas without broadbrand. In the U.S., this is rural areas. But worldwide, it is a lot larger. Sure this market may not be the most lucrative but with a large enough vol becoming the ISP for the entire third world could be valuable.
Sure except there are a lot of companies in the most valuable in the world that are real world makers. Wal mart is worth about a trillion.
It’s called a margin loan. If you aren’t super poor, you can mortgage against your stocks.
What if you borrow against your home to finance an improvement?
To me, make capital gains tax rate at 10% and you eliminate these silly games whilst probably raising revenue.
First, many Europeans abandoned wealth taxes because they had a bunch of practical issues with less money raised than expected.
Second, as a shareholder would you prefer the Musk path where he basically doesn’t get paid unless he hits crazy milestones or he gets paid a much smaller amount regardless of milestones?
Third, a wealth tax as described is likely unconstitutional.
We could argue (they are both highly tactical) but I hope we can both agree soccer is far from having the same tactical approach.
But that happens in other sports as well. In football, there is constant attempts by the offense to set up plays to catch the defense in a wrong play. The defense is constantly trying to surprise and disguise the offense to create a massive play. Most plays aren’t huge plays but many lead up to it.
The difference is that most plays could be huge plays. Most plays are kinetic. Most plays are violent. Most plays are one player out eleven doing the wrong thing (or amazing thing) from a massive breakdown or big play. And also there is a clear sub-goal—gotta get the first down. Even if you don’t score on that play, getting from 1st and 10 to second and 2 is a huge play! It sets up a mini score when you convert the first down on the next play or two.
Hockey is constantly a dance where players are trying to solve the forecheck by the offense or the trap being deployed by the defense. If one team solves, it almost immediately leads to a high quality scoring chance. Oh and beyond kinetic. And there is scoring. Less than the NFL. But more than scoring and the scoring chances are way higher.
Baseball is probably the most tactical sport. Each pitch is setting up the next pitch. Decisions about bullpen usage, when to steal, when to bunt, etc.
In short, the thing soccer fans claim as not unique about their sport. In fact, frequently it is lacking compared to other sports. It then has a bunch of other issues (not a lot of scoring or scoring chances, not a lot of kinetic action, limited violence). It is just a sub standard game that is largely popular due to poverty.
Or people could watch a real sport like Hockey where scoring can happen at any point, frequently happens after wearing down your opponent, and there are actual fights!
Interesting. Thanks!
Totally misread that — problem posting when you wake up
- Prev
- Next

Farage seemingly still supports Muslims in the UK as a class. He is okay with a multi cultural society as long as it remains slightly British slightly longer.
More options
Context Copy link