RubberDuck

In all fairness, the US had defunct laws from the 1700 on the books no one bothered to repeal… guess which laws will now be used by the Trump administration.

The fact these laws where still on the books just proves their point… they will just now eliminate laws they don’t like… like child labor laws.

Business cat

That’s just the dishonest pundets though… and the people ratcheting the Dems right. Kamala ran on a Y2K republican program and got annihilated because Y2K republicans are now maga and there are no moderate republicans.

Or when convicted of these… he gets sent to the next state where his did it to stand trial there. He’s probably also in for a significant amount of civil suits… I’d guess about 300.

Nah they probably sat together and said… we can make bank… let’s do this and give people a good show… And then they did the whole shebang and gave people a nice performance that cost next to nothing to produce and pocketed the rest. Pretty clever.

Jake Paul knows some people pay to see Tyson beat the anot out of him, others hate watch him and he has fans apparently.

Or sometimes the PR team of niche and new tech are a bunch of insufferable twats.

A lot of laws are written in blood. This is what insufficient environmental protection looks like either in law or enforcement. People should be more aware of this.

Dont we have political nuts that want to creep on our internet usage and even our DM’s?

Religious nuts want to creep on your internet usage too.

Isn’t he also against antidepressants

Clinton repealing glass steagall

Or one of our 12675 carefully selected partners

Bending the knee

He just checks the no fly list.

Ah this soon will be remedied. Not because the Chinese stop this stuff, but because the FBI will be dismantled by putting loyalists in place where competency should matter.

Except in this case the tax is levied across the entire value chain. But yes, this would favor high margin business over low margin ones. But isn’t the current system doing that too? Investors throw money at high margin companies while not so much at low margin ones.

That would be true if companies did not create elaborate constructions and park money in tax havens.

I’d almost say that companies should be taxed (a different rate) not on profits but on revenue. If they make the revenue in your country, it should be taxed in your country.

Except your argument on small ownership is quick decision making has a counter arguement… shareholders… they appoint a small group for daily operations and decisionmaking. But the real power is with the shareholder meeting and a large group of possibly anonymous owners.

Exclude a mortgage for your primary residence, capped at the median house price or something… And only exclude it IF it is paid back in full over a max period.

This is the case in the Netherlands… paid back in full after max 30 years… No cap in how much. This was because the interest on the mortgage are tax deductible. So some bankers figured… we keep the loan maxed, and put your paybacks in a special fund… and at the end of the 30 years the fund pays back the mortgage. That way we get max interests and you get max tax break. In the end the banks made a lot of public funds private this way.

Assets are taxed all the time (real estate tax, car tax… ). So taxing the value of a share portfolio at the 31st of December each year is perfectly doable. And if it has depreciated since last year, you get a tax deduction… which is capped by the income tax to maximally reach 0… No carrying over till next year… or maybe 1 year… whatever, that’s implementation details.

How much do you tax these assets is the point that needs consideration… it’s not fully income… But a percentage is only fair. And if this means people need to realize gains to pay for it… that’s fine… Why would it not be?

And borrowing against an asset portfolio should mean that it counts as realizing gains of the asset portfolio and the amount is seen as income and thus taxed. (You loan 10 million against your shares, that’s income) And to avoid fallout for the normal people you can build in a threshold and exclusions for example for the first million in your lifetime… or for the mortgage on your primary residence with a cap at the median house price or … something. So for these people borrowing against assets means they can keep the assets… but pay interest on the loan. Alternatively they can actually realize the gains and pay cash.

It’s not hard at all, it’s a matter of political will, and writing proper laws that state your objective and exceptions.