I dunno dude, I am just explaining while this move isn’t a contradiction with libertarian ideas.

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.

Americans marry early. And often.

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.

Time is running out on the climate, how many decades can we wait for the “perfect” solution to show up when we have a good enough one right now they can help?

They could. Someday.

Nuclear can, now.

How long will it take for us to get good enough batteries?

Including the time to manufacture and install them at utility scales (we are talking powering an entire nation out of batteries for hours), way more than a decade.

Batteries are already being installed on grids but they can only help so much smooth out power delivery. They are very very far from having the ability to completely take over an entire grid.

Germany has tons of solar and winds and is pretty common to have neither (windless nights) at which point the entire grid needs to be powered by non renewables. That’s a lot of standby power.