

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