正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Govt to nationalise rail passenger services. Highly profitable freight, rolling stock companies (ROSCOs) to remain private. Why? ROSCOs based in Luxembourg, funded from public purse, profit margin 41.6%, paid £2.7bn dividend, no UK tax on that. Minister didn't answer questions

Prem Sikka

131,625 subscribers

176,943 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)

财经新闻政治

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

Coffee Driven Thinker 🇬🇧 的头像

Coffee Driven Thinker 🇬🇧2 年前

Please keep pushing on this and all the other issues. New Govmnt has echos of the last one and the ones before that.

Prem Sikka 的头像

Prem Sikka2 年前

We all need to give visibility to what is ignored, forgotten, marginalised and swept under the rug. Only that way we can broaden debates and public choices, and create possibilities of living a fulfilling life.

Sanus Dubium - 🐭 的头像

Sanus Dubium - 🐭2 年前

If I was to speculate a bit, I would suggest they "privatise the profits, social the debt / costs " 🤔🤔🤔

Prem Sikka 的头像

Prem Sikka2 年前

Yes. That is the neoliberal way. Their greatest achievement has been to restructure the state so that it guarantees private profits - privatisation, outsourcing, PFI; guaranteed real returns each year for water companies. In essence it is a capita welfare programme.

Richard 的头像

Richard2 年前

Roscos: Why companies operating in one place but operate financially in another place... TAX Should governments give contracts to such companies? Something for the UK government to consider when they take over the TOCs franchises.

Colin Boyle 的头像

Colin Boyle2 年前

Nationalisation of ROSCOs is a longstanding Green Party policy.

michelle wales 的头像

michelle wales2 年前

Is there no plan to take this on later ?

Prem Sikka 的头像

Prem Sikka2 年前

The Minister could have said that but didn't repond.

DrCalistaOctaviaHill - The one and only 的头像

DrCalistaOctaviaHill - The one and only2 年前

We own them - they do not own us - time to change things....

Aubrey 的头像

Aubrey2 年前

Follow the profit

相关视频

“Netflix posted $1.47 billion in revenue in Australia in 2025, $1.35 billion of which was sent overseas as “distribution fees” to its parent entities. After its offshore fees, Netflix Australia had $119 million in revenue and $20 million in profit. It paid $16 million in income tax and paid a dividend of $41 million. This allows them to transfer vast amounts of money abroad, very little of which is taxable in Australia. Netflix had an effective local profit margin of 1.4 per cent of its total Australian revenue. “A distribution fee is paid by the company under this agreement, and the operating margin retained by the company is an arm’s length return in accordance with the Netflix Group’s transfer pricing policy,” the accounts say. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Netflix.” •••••••••••••• Globalists often talk about tariffs and how bad they are for free trade, but you rarely hear them complain about reverse tariffs whereby multinational companies can send profits offshore at tax rates much lower than onshore tax rates. Netflix has a local operating profit margin of 1.4% while their worldwide operating profit (see accounts in comments) was 28%. Multinationals get away with shifting so much money offshore because of our tax treaties allow them by setting withholding tax rates well below the onshore company tax rate. For example the withholding tax on royalties paid to the U.S. is just 5%. (See link below) Netflix can save 25% in every dollar it transfers offshore. So 25 cents on $1.35 billion transferred offshore is $338 million in lost company tax to Australia. To be fair to Netflix, some of the fees paid offshore should be offset by production costs but not at rate of 98.6% in the dollar. I.e 1.4% margin. is the only party that understands transfer pricing. We will apply a 25% withholding tax on all offshore payments that exceed the operating profit ratio of its worldwide entity.

“Netflix posted $1.47 billion in revenue in Australia in 2025, $1.35 billion of which was sent overseas as “distribution fees” to its parent entities. After its offshore fees, Netflix Australia had $119 million in revenue and $20 million in profit. It paid $16 million in income tax and paid a dividend of $41 million. This allows them to transfer vast amounts of money abroad, very little of which is taxable in Australia. Netflix had an effective local profit margin of 1.4 per cent of its total Australian revenue. “A distribution fee is paid by the company under this agreement, and the operating margin retained by the company is an arm’s length return in accordance with the Netflix Group’s transfer pricing policy,” the accounts say. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Netflix.” •••••••••••••• Globalists often talk about tariffs and how bad they are for free trade, but you rarely hear them complain about reverse tariffs whereby multinational companies can send profits offshore at tax rates much lower than onshore tax rates. Netflix has a local operating profit margin of 1.4% while their worldwide operating profit (see accounts in comments) was 28%. Multinationals get away with shifting so much money offshore because of our tax treaties allow them by setting withholding tax rates well below the onshore company tax rate. For example the withholding tax on royalties paid to the U.S. is just 5%. (See link below) Netflix can save 25% in every dollar it transfers offshore. So 25 cents on $1.35 billion transferred offshore is $338 million in lost company tax to Australia. To be fair to Netflix, some of the fees paid offshore should be offset by production costs but not at rate of 98.6% in the dollar. I.e 1.4% margin. is the only party that understands transfer pricing. We will apply a 25% withholding tax on all offshore payments that exceed the operating profit ratio of its worldwide entity.

Gerard Rennick

64,287 次观看 • 3 个月前

Tusla – Ireland’s Child and Family Agency – is outsourcing the care of vulnerable children to private companies. And when care becomes a commodity, compassion takes second place. Private homes charge €600–€1,200 a day, high-support placements €1,000–€1,500, and emergency placements up to €3,000 a day……that’s €1 million a year for one child. Companies make 10–25% profit margins, directors take home minister-level salaries, and all of it is funded by public money and children’s pain. This isn’t compassion. It’s commerce. An industry that profits from broken homes and trauma. It’s eerily similar to the privatisation of prisons in America, once profit entered the system, laws changed, and the cells filled. Now, Tusla is building a business model on childhood pain. A broken child should never come with a profit margin attached. #Tusla #Ireland #ChildProtection #Accountability

Tusla – Ireland’s Child and Family Agency – is outsourcing the care of vulnerable children to private companies. And when care becomes a commodity, compassion takes second place. Private homes charge €600–€1,200 a day, high-support placements €1,000–€1,500, and emergency placements up to €3,000 a day……that’s €1 million a year for one child. Companies make 10–25% profit margins, directors take home minister-level salaries, and all of it is funded by public money and children’s pain. This isn’t compassion. It’s commerce. An industry that profits from broken homes and trauma. It’s eerily similar to the privatisation of prisons in America, once profit entered the system, laws changed, and the cells filled. Now, Tusla is building a business model on childhood pain. A broken child should never come with a profit margin attached. #Tusla #Ireland #ChildProtection #Accountability

Melissa Ciummei

23,788 次观看 • 10 个月前

Why is Mr. Lakshmi Mittal and thousands of other millionaires leaving UK this year? Last year over 250k British nationals left the UK... and in the current year, almost 16k millionaires are expected the have left the UK... It's because of a major law that is proposed to be passed in the UK Parliament that none of the wealthy people like... To understand this, let's first understand why the Global Wealthy were in the UK to begin with... The Global Wealthy would go to the UK because the country had a Non-Dom Regime... which basically meant that all the incomes earned by UK residents in other parts of the world and all such capital gains would not be taxed... For example, in India, your global incomes are taxed if you are an Indian tax resident... Now there are three major changes that have happened that made millionaires pulled the trigger... 1/ In Oct 2024, the capital gains tax was increased from 20% to 24% 2/ In April 2025, UK abolished the Non Dom regime by which global incomes become taxable in the UK... and more importantly 40% inheritance tax becomes payable even on assets outside of the UK. 3/ And now the third issue... where the Govt is now proposing to levy a 20% exit tax on unrealised gains on these assets, which are not even sold, but only appreciated in value Now where are all these people going? Most of these people are now going to Dubai... No personal income tax, no wealth tax, no inheritance tax, no capital gains tax, no dividend tax... Absolute safety - no crime... and corporate tax is just 9% while you get all the first world facilities while being close to Asia as well as Europe. If you have to move somewhere globally, the best bet right now is the UAE.

Why is Mr. Lakshmi Mittal and thousands of other millionaires leaving UK this year? Last year over 250k British nationals left the UK... and in the current year, almost 16k millionaires are expected the have left the UK... It's because of a major law that is proposed to be passed in the UK Parliament that none of the wealthy people like... To understand this, let's first understand why the Global Wealthy were in the UK to begin with... The Global Wealthy would go to the UK because the country had a Non-Dom Regime... which basically meant that all the incomes earned by UK residents in other parts of the world and all such capital gains would not be taxed... For example, in India, your global incomes are taxed if you are an Indian tax resident... Now there are three major changes that have happened that made millionaires pulled the trigger... 1/ In Oct 2024, the capital gains tax was increased from 20% to 24% 2/ In April 2025, UK abolished the Non Dom regime by which global incomes become taxable in the UK... and more importantly 40% inheritance tax becomes payable even on assets outside of the UK. 3/ And now the third issue... where the Govt is now proposing to levy a 20% exit tax on unrealised gains on these assets, which are not even sold, but only appreciated in value Now where are all these people going? Most of these people are now going to Dubai... No personal income tax, no wealth tax, no inheritance tax, no capital gains tax, no dividend tax... Absolute safety - no crime... and corporate tax is just 9% while you get all the first world facilities while being close to Asia as well as Europe. If you have to move somewhere globally, the best bet right now is the UAE.

JIX5A

57,632 次观看 • 9 个月前

Zack Polanski, "It's not enough to just be hopeful... It's about having hope and a plan" "I also disagree that left wing policies are popular" "Didn't you - Jeremy Corbyn - get 3,000,000 more votes than Keir Starmer got?" Jeremy Corbyn, "The highest vote this century for Labour, it was 2017" Zack Polanski, "That's 3,000,000 more people who wanted to move wealth away from private capital, to nationalise our water services, nationalise our public services, and that's very popular in this country" "Broadband is a good example of how the media jumped on saying it's not possible, not pragmatic. And that's their number one weapon, to always make people think that better isn't possible, and that change isn't possible" "And we know why. The multimillionaires and billionaires who pump money into wars, or oil and gas, or into arms companies, or into gambling companies" "Once they've bought up the assets, they buy the media, then they buy our democracy" "I guess we're here tonight to say that they're taken our power, they've taken our democracy, they're taken our media" "But collectively, we are going to take it back"

Zack Polanski, "It's not enough to just be hopeful... It's about having hope and a plan" "I also disagree that left wing policies are popular" "Didn't you - Jeremy Corbyn - get 3,000,000 more votes than Keir Starmer got?" Jeremy Corbyn, "The highest vote this century for Labour, it was 2017" Zack Polanski, "That's 3,000,000 more people who wanted to move wealth away from private capital, to nationalise our water services, nationalise our public services, and that's very popular in this country" "Broadband is a good example of how the media jumped on saying it's not possible, not pragmatic. And that's their number one weapon, to always make people think that better isn't possible, and that change isn't possible" "And we know why. The multimillionaires and billionaires who pump money into wars, or oil and gas, or into arms companies, or into gambling companies" "Once they've bought up the assets, they buy the media, then they buy our democracy" "I guess we're here tonight to say that they're taken our power, they've taken our democracy, they're taken our media" "But collectively, we are going to take it back"

Farrukh

299,187 次观看 • 5 个月前

States receive 100% of State GST (SGST) collected in that state, approximately 50% of IGST collected in the state, and a portion of CGST is also devolved to the states based on the Finance Commission's recommendations. Industrialised states like Tamil Nadu have several companies with pan-India operations and concurrent tax payments. For example, Tamil Nadu is one of the leading automobile manufacturing states in the country. Manufacturers make a profit because these automobiles are sold across the country. Similarly, plantations from Kerala make profits by selling across India. This explains why the location of direct tax collection may not be a fair and equitable principle for the sharing of tax because although the money comes from everywhere across India, tax is paid in the state where the companies are registered. So, if automobile companies selling across India are registered in Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu and they pay their taxes from there, it's not just Tamil Nadu's tax money that is there. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha. BJP KERALAM BJP Tamilnadu

States receive 100% of State GST (SGST) collected in that state, approximately 50% of IGST collected in the state, and a portion of CGST is also devolved to the states based on the Finance Commission's recommendations. Industrialised states like Tamil Nadu have several companies with pan-India operations and concurrent tax payments. For example, Tamil Nadu is one of the leading automobile manufacturing states in the country. Manufacturers make a profit because these automobiles are sold across the country. Similarly, plantations from Kerala make profits by selling across India. This explains why the location of direct tax collection may not be a fair and equitable principle for the sharing of tax because although the money comes from everywhere across India, tax is paid in the state where the companies are registered. So, if automobile companies selling across India are registered in Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu and they pay their taxes from there, it's not just Tamil Nadu's tax money that is there. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha. BJP KERALAM BJP Tamilnadu

Nirmala Sitharaman Office

809,031 次观看 • 2 年前

I went to the local Drag Queen Storytime, so you didn't have to. I wanted to see who was putting on the event & funding it. I met Eli from Parasol Patrol & Clark from the Arvada Center. Clark claims that this was funded by the Arvada Center Non-profit & NOT tax dollars. However, that's not entirely true. They DO receive public funds via tax dollars! The Arvada Center for the Arts & Humanities (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in Arvada, Colorado) receives public funds. Its primary public funding sources include: •Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD): This is a voter-approved regional sales tax district (0.1% tax) across seven Colorado counties that distributes public tax dollars to arts, culture, and science organizations. The Arvada Center is a Tier II SCFD-funded organization and has received major funding from it—for example, about 9% of its revenue in FY24. It actively supports SCFD reauthorization and is listed among SCFD’s funded partners. •City of Arvada: The Center has a longstanding public partnership with the City of Arvada (it originated as a city-supported initiative). The city is explicitly listed among its key supporters on the Center’s website, alongside SCFD. Historical records and position descriptions reference ongoing relationships and city involvement. The Center’s own website highlights these public supporters (with logos for SCFD and the City of Arvada) and notes that, as a nonprofit, it also relies on private philanthropic donations, ticket sales, sponsorships, and other earned revenue. It maintains a grant writer on staff and has received or been eligible for various grants over time (though it has stated it is not currently receiving direct National Endowment for the Arts funding). Financial filings (e.g., Form 990 data via ProPublica) show “contributions” (which include grants from public and private sources), making up a significant portion of revenue, alongside program service revenue. In short, while the Center depends on a mix of public and private support, it clearly receives public funds through SCFD (tax-supported) and the City of Arvada.

I went to the local Drag Queen Storytime, so you didn't have to. I wanted to see who was putting on the event & funding it. I met Eli from Parasol Patrol & Clark from the Arvada Center. Clark claims that this was funded by the Arvada Center Non-profit & NOT tax dollars. However, that's not entirely true. They DO receive public funds via tax dollars! The Arvada Center for the Arts & Humanities (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in Arvada, Colorado) receives public funds. Its primary public funding sources include: •Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD): This is a voter-approved regional sales tax district (0.1% tax) across seven Colorado counties that distributes public tax dollars to arts, culture, and science organizations. The Arvada Center is a Tier II SCFD-funded organization and has received major funding from it—for example, about 9% of its revenue in FY24. It actively supports SCFD reauthorization and is listed among SCFD’s funded partners. •City of Arvada: The Center has a longstanding public partnership with the City of Arvada (it originated as a city-supported initiative). The city is explicitly listed among its key supporters on the Center’s website, alongside SCFD. Historical records and position descriptions reference ongoing relationships and city involvement. The Center’s own website highlights these public supporters (with logos for SCFD and the City of Arvada) and notes that, as a nonprofit, it also relies on private philanthropic donations, ticket sales, sponsorships, and other earned revenue. It maintains a grant writer on staff and has received or been eligible for various grants over time (though it has stated it is not currently receiving direct National Endowment for the Arts funding). Financial filings (e.g., Form 990 data via ProPublica) show “contributions” (which include grants from public and private sources), making up a significant portion of revenue, alongside program service revenue. In short, while the Center depends on a mix of public and private support, it clearly receives public funds through SCFD (tax-supported) and the City of Arvada.

Break The Chains Media

19,379 次观看 • 3 个月前

Canadians using the example of Thatcher privatising water as a reason to not privatise their water industry - we're a world beating case study 🤷‍♂️ Steve Paikin, "40 years ago.. Margaret Thatcher privatised water.. Would you privatise water in Ontario?" Michele Grenier, "With the experience in the UK, a lot of people are reluctant to go down that road" Steve Paikin, "Has the city of Hamilton thought of privatising water services?" Nick Winters, "We contracted operations and learned a hard lesson about there not being value in that model.. Private entities looking to derive a profit may not look at the infrastructure as municipal operations.. They should remain owned by public entities in a not for profit manner" Barbara Robinson, "When a third party was operating our sewers, the region was hands off.. Didn't pay attention.. Somebody else is operating it.. Not worried about leaks.. The private company didn't put any investment in to improving the sewers.. That's dangerous because sewers leak" Steve Paikin, "At the end of the day if something goes wrong, people don't approach the private companies they approach their politicians.. So they're accountable at the end of the day anyway"

Canadians using the example of Thatcher privatising water as a reason to not privatise their water industry - we're a world beating case study 🤷‍♂️ Steve Paikin, "40 years ago.. Margaret Thatcher privatised water.. Would you privatise water in Ontario?" Michele Grenier, "With the experience in the UK, a lot of people are reluctant to go down that road" Steve Paikin, "Has the city of Hamilton thought of privatising water services?" Nick Winters, "We contracted operations and learned a hard lesson about there not being value in that model.. Private entities looking to derive a profit may not look at the infrastructure as municipal operations.. They should remain owned by public entities in a not for profit manner" Barbara Robinson, "When a third party was operating our sewers, the region was hands off.. Didn't pay attention.. Somebody else is operating it.. Not worried about leaks.. The private company didn't put any investment in to improving the sewers.. That's dangerous because sewers leak" Steve Paikin, "At the end of the day if something goes wrong, people don't approach the private companies they approach their politicians.. So they're accountable at the end of the day anyway"

Farrukh

188,103 次观看 • 1 年前

I’d like to know all your opinions in the comments? I’ve just paid £1.70 a litre for diesel. Why are we not opening up our gas and oil field in the North Sea? Surely by opening these and sourcing from our own reserves, we will bring our prices of fuel down, energy costs down, create jobs, bring revenue and tax into the UK economy that can be spent on the roads, the NHS, UK services and schools. We continue to source our fuel from abroad and it makes no sense to me! We should be backing our UK manufacturing and not let it go abroad! We live in very uncertain times especially what’s going on in the Middle East. Love to hear your opinion, let’s back Britain 🇬🇧 - Bosh ❤️

I’d like to know all your opinions in the comments? I’ve just paid £1.70 a litre for diesel. Why are we not opening up our gas and oil field in the North Sea? Surely by opening these and sourcing from our own reserves, we will bring our prices of fuel down, energy costs down, create jobs, bring revenue and tax into the UK economy that can be spent on the roads, the NHS, UK services and schools. We continue to source our fuel from abroad and it makes no sense to me! We should be backing our UK manufacturing and not let it go abroad! We live in very uncertain times especially what’s going on in the Middle East. Love to hear your opinion, let’s back Britain 🇬🇧 - Bosh ❤️

Thomas Skinner ⚒

781,093 次观看 • 6 个月前

The APC continues to muddy the waters with propaganda, violence, and identity politics, deliberately distracting you from what truly matters. They want us divided, angry at one another, so we forget to ask the real questions: Why does a road of 4.52km long cost ₦279 billion and remain uncompleted after 51 months? Why they budget 212 million for 20 office tables and chairs. Or budget N113 million for a generator that costs N16 million, and N20 billion for 40 units of cars. Why is there zero meaningful investment in public housing, while those in power live in palatial mansions funded by the state? Why do residents of Lagos Island lack access to potable water, forced to pay a daily premium just to meet basic needs? Why does the political class spend billions each year on new vehicles for themselves, while citizens are left stranded at bus stops without reliable public transportation? Why, in the midst of global oil shocks and a worsening cost-of-living crisis, did the Lagos State government increase the cost of public transport? Why did it take seven years—reluctantly—for them to even begin addressing public sanitation, after years of a dismissive “go back to your state” approach? Why does Lagos continue to charge a 5% consumption tax without transparent records of annual revenue, despite promises to harmonise taxes after so-called “reforms”? Why have trillions been spent over the past two decades on opaque consultancy services with little to no accountability? Why do they preside over a broken waste management system that pollutes the environment, endangers public health, and discourages tourism? These are the questions that matter, these are the issues that continue to affect you and your loved ones.

The APC continues to muddy the waters with propaganda, violence, and identity politics, deliberately distracting you from what truly matters. They want us divided, angry at one another, so we forget to ask the real questions: Why does a road of 4.52km long cost ₦279 billion and remain uncompleted after 51 months? Why they budget 212 million for 20 office tables and chairs. Or budget N113 million for a generator that costs N16 million, and N20 billion for 40 units of cars. Why is there zero meaningful investment in public housing, while those in power live in palatial mansions funded by the state? Why do residents of Lagos Island lack access to potable water, forced to pay a daily premium just to meet basic needs? Why does the political class spend billions each year on new vehicles for themselves, while citizens are left stranded at bus stops without reliable public transportation? Why, in the midst of global oil shocks and a worsening cost-of-living crisis, did the Lagos State government increase the cost of public transport? Why did it take seven years—reluctantly—for them to even begin addressing public sanitation, after years of a dismissive “go back to your state” approach? Why does Lagos continue to charge a 5% consumption tax without transparent records of annual revenue, despite promises to harmonise taxes after so-called “reforms”? Why have trillions been spent over the past two decades on opaque consultancy services with little to no accountability? Why do they preside over a broken waste management system that pollutes the environment, endangers public health, and discourages tourism? These are the questions that matter, these are the issues that continue to affect you and your loved ones.

Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour

33,174 次观看 • 5 个月前

#WATCH | Delhi: On SHANTI Bill, Congress MP Manish Tewari says, "The combined Opposition has walked out of the Lok Sabha, primarily because the Govt has failed to address the two core issues in the Bill. One, it's a very strange position for the Govt to take that a supplier will not be liable for a faulty product which he may supply, which leads to a nuclear incident or accident. Where is the pressure coming from to completely absolve the nuclear suppliers? It's inexplicable that in a matter as serious as nuclear energy, to completely give a pass to the suppliers is something which is completely unheard of. Two, this Govt seems to have a strange philosophy that while you will privatise profit, you will socialise liability. That you will not make private companies liable for their actions but Govt will take the responsibility for that. This is unprecedented. You are turning the whole concept of a democratic welfare state on its head. That's why, because there were no satisfactory answers, the Opposition walked out of the Lok Sabha in protest."

#WATCH | Delhi: On SHANTI Bill, Congress MP Manish Tewari says, "The combined Opposition has walked out of the Lok Sabha, primarily because the Govt has failed to address the two core issues in the Bill. One, it's a very strange position for the Govt to take that a supplier will not be liable for a faulty product which he may supply, which leads to a nuclear incident or accident. Where is the pressure coming from to completely absolve the nuclear suppliers? It's inexplicable that in a matter as serious as nuclear energy, to completely give a pass to the suppliers is something which is completely unheard of. Two, this Govt seems to have a strange philosophy that while you will privatise profit, you will socialise liability. That you will not make private companies liable for their actions but Govt will take the responsibility for that. This is unprecedented. You are turning the whole concept of a democratic welfare state on its head. That's why, because there were no satisfactory answers, the Opposition walked out of the Lok Sabha in protest."

ANI

57,387 次观看 • 9 个月前

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬? Last night, the Mysuru Darbhanga Express Train hit a stationary goods train in Tamil Nadu & 12 coaches got derailed. Reason is alleged to be that the passenger train was directed on a loop line instead of the main line. This DEMOLISHES the ridiculous theory being propagated by Rail Min Ashwini Vaishnaw since weeks that “train derailments are being done by ISIS terrorists”. An anti-collision system like KAVACH would’ve prevented this mishap. But guess what - KAVACH is operational on LESS THAN 2% of Indian Rail network despite the technology being introduced in 2016. It’s taken the Modi Govt 8 years to cover just 2% of the network. The mysterious questions are: 👉 WHY is rail safety being ignored constantly & shamelessly by the Modi Govt? 👉 Why does Ashwini Vaishnaw continue to be rail minister despite an accident happening almost every week? 👉 Why does India NOT HAVE A FULL-TIME Rail Minister? 👉 Why is Modi in a rush to launch new “high speed” trains everyday when the safety of railways is rock bottom making these trains extremely risky? Railways is being ignored because it’s mostly the poor & lower middle class who travel on it. This shameless disregard for the lives of lakhs of Indians is pathetic. The pathetic condition of Indian Railways currently wouldn’t be acceptable in any civilized democracy. What exactly is the sinister game of Modi & Ashwini Vaishnaw? Why is there no action against Ashwini Vaishnaw despite regular train accidents? Who is the Modi Govt trying to enrich by destroying Indian Railways?

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬? Last night, the Mysuru Darbhanga Express Train hit a stationary goods train in Tamil Nadu & 12 coaches got derailed. Reason is alleged to be that the passenger train was directed on a loop line instead of the main line. This DEMOLISHES the ridiculous theory being propagated by Rail Min Ashwini Vaishnaw since weeks that “train derailments are being done by ISIS terrorists”. An anti-collision system like KAVACH would’ve prevented this mishap. But guess what - KAVACH is operational on LESS THAN 2% of Indian Rail network despite the technology being introduced in 2016. It’s taken the Modi Govt 8 years to cover just 2% of the network. The mysterious questions are: 👉 WHY is rail safety being ignored constantly & shamelessly by the Modi Govt? 👉 Why does Ashwini Vaishnaw continue to be rail minister despite an accident happening almost every week? 👉 Why does India NOT HAVE A FULL-TIME Rail Minister? 👉 Why is Modi in a rush to launch new “high speed” trains everyday when the safety of railways is rock bottom making these trains extremely risky? Railways is being ignored because it’s mostly the poor & lower middle class who travel on it. This shameless disregard for the lives of lakhs of Indians is pathetic. The pathetic condition of Indian Railways currently wouldn’t be acceptable in any civilized democracy. What exactly is the sinister game of Modi & Ashwini Vaishnaw? Why is there no action against Ashwini Vaishnaw despite regular train accidents? Who is the Modi Govt trying to enrich by destroying Indian Railways?

Saket Gokhale

27,902 次观看 • 1 年前

It's all falling apart for FC Barcelona. Real Madrid presented their questions and Laporta couldn't answer when every answer only created another contradiction. The questions were: • How could an analyst based in Turkey at the same time produce analyses of the Spanish league? • How could so-called “technical reports” include private information about referees, which would be impossible to access without some kind of internal influence? • How could an analysis of a World Cup be written before the tournament even took place? • How could the first documented assignment turn out to be an invoice for “aloe vera packs”? • How could the son of the person receiving the payments — who claims he didn’t even know about them — be presented by the club as the author of reports, even though he says he was paid through another channel? • Why did the payments suddenly increase by 800%? • Why were tax documents accepted that classified these payments as “gifts” or voluntary payments? • Why did the club withhold information from the tax authority, the public prosecutor, the compliance department, and even its own auditors?

It's all falling apart for FC Barcelona. Real Madrid presented their questions and Laporta couldn't answer when every answer only created another contradiction. The questions were: • How could an analyst based in Turkey at the same time produce analyses of the Spanish league? • How could so-called “technical reports” include private information about referees, which would be impossible to access without some kind of internal influence? • How could an analysis of a World Cup be written before the tournament even took place? • How could the first documented assignment turn out to be an invoice for “aloe vera packs”? • How could the son of the person receiving the payments — who claims he didn’t even know about them — be presented by the club as the author of reports, even though he says he was paid through another channel? • Why did the payments suddenly increase by 800%? • Why were tax documents accepted that classified these payments as “gifts” or voluntary payments? • Why did the club withhold information from the tax authority, the public prosecutor, the compliance department, and even its own auditors?

LBW

306,505 次观看 • 9 个月前

With companies like SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI potentially heading toward IPOs, investors are already debating which one will be the biggest winner. My view is that trying to pick a single champion is a mistake. SpaceX gives you exposure to Elon Musk and the success of Starlink, which is already a highly profitable business. Anthropic has impressed me personally after rolling out Claude across my organization, it quickly became a tool I use every day. And OpenAI remains one of the most important players in the space. The reality is nobody knows how this race will play out once these companies are public. That’s why I’d rather own all of them on a diversified basis instead of trying to predict a winner. When a sector is moving this fast, the smarter bet is often on the entire trend, not a single stock.

With companies like SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI potentially heading toward IPOs, investors are already debating which one will be the biggest winner. My view is that trying to pick a single champion is a mistake. SpaceX gives you exposure to Elon Musk and the success of Starlink, which is already a highly profitable business. Anthropic has impressed me personally after rolling out Claude across my organization, it quickly became a tool I use every day. And OpenAI remains one of the most important players in the space. The reality is nobody knows how this race will play out once these companies are public. That’s why I’d rather own all of them on a diversified basis instead of trying to predict a winner. When a sector is moving this fast, the smarter bet is often on the entire trend, not a single stock.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

34,397 次观看 • 3 个月前

Dr. Njoki Fernandes sat on a television studio and told Kenyans that there is a private school for every pocket and that parents should stop pushing their children into congested public schools. It is the kind of statement that can only come from someone who has never had to choose between school fees and food. Nobody takes their child to a public school because they prefer it. They take them there because it is what they can afford. The parent in Kibera, the farmer in Turkana, the bodaboda rider in Eldoret did not sit down and weigh private school options against public ones. They had one option and they took it. Telling them to consider private schools is not advice. It is an insult dressed in concern. The real question that should have been asked on that television programme is this. Why are public schools congested in the first place? Why are dormitories unsafe? Why are there not enough teachers, enough classrooms, enough fire extinguishers? The answer is that the government has chronically underfunded public education while the elite that makes policy sends their own children to private schools and international institutions. They have no personal stake in fixing what they do not use. If the government fully funded public education, ensured proper capitation from primary to secondary level and made basic education genuinely free and properly resourced, the conversation would be completely different. Parents do not need to be told to find a private school. They need a government that treats public education as a right worth funding properly. Your privilege should not be used to generalise a narrative. Dismas wa Tabu. Dreaming in installments. Billed in full.

Dr. Njoki Fernandes sat on a television studio and told Kenyans that there is a private school for every pocket and that parents should stop pushing their children into congested public schools. It is the kind of statement that can only come from someone who has never had to choose between school fees and food. Nobody takes their child to a public school because they prefer it. They take them there because it is what they can afford. The parent in Kibera, the farmer in Turkana, the bodaboda rider in Eldoret did not sit down and weigh private school options against public ones. They had one option and they took it. Telling them to consider private schools is not advice. It is an insult dressed in concern. The real question that should have been asked on that television programme is this. Why are public schools congested in the first place? Why are dormitories unsafe? Why are there not enough teachers, enough classrooms, enough fire extinguishers? The answer is that the government has chronically underfunded public education while the elite that makes policy sends their own children to private schools and international institutions. They have no personal stake in fixing what they do not use. If the government fully funded public education, ensured proper capitation from primary to secondary level and made basic education genuinely free and properly resourced, the conversation would be completely different. Parents do not need to be told to find a private school. They need a government that treats public education as a right worth funding properly. Your privilege should not be used to generalise a narrative. Dismas wa Tabu. Dreaming in installments. Billed in full.

DismasWaTabu

27,929 次观看 • 3 个月前

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 次观看 • 8 个月前

Joe Rogan hit Aaron Siri with a sharp challenge about Vioxx. The drug ended up killing an estimated 50,000+ people. The company knew there were serious risks beforehand (internal emails showed they were willing to accept the harm because they projected it would still be highly profitable). They paid a big fine, but still walked away with billions in profit. Rogan’s point was blunt: these are the same pharmaceutical companies that have been hit with billions in criminal fines for fraud and misconduct over the years. So when they tell us “trust the science” on vaccines (or any new drug), why are we supposed to believe this is the one area where they suddenly become 100% honest and transparent? It’s a hard sell if you’re not already ideologically captured. The conversation made me uncomfortable because it highlights how profit motives and public trust can clash in ways that feel deeply unsettling. What do you think — does past behavior like Vioxx make you more skeptical of pharmaceutical companies, or do you think vaccines are held to a different standard?

Joe Rogan hit Aaron Siri with a sharp challenge about Vioxx. The drug ended up killing an estimated 50,000+ people. The company knew there were serious risks beforehand (internal emails showed they were willing to accept the harm because they projected it would still be highly profitable). They paid a big fine, but still walked away with billions in profit. Rogan’s point was blunt: these are the same pharmaceutical companies that have been hit with billions in criminal fines for fraud and misconduct over the years. So when they tell us “trust the science” on vaccines (or any new drug), why are we supposed to believe this is the one area where they suddenly become 100% honest and transparent? It’s a hard sell if you’re not already ideologically captured. The conversation made me uncomfortable because it highlights how profit motives and public trust can clash in ways that feel deeply unsettling. What do you think — does past behavior like Vioxx make you more skeptical of pharmaceutical companies, or do you think vaccines are held to a different standard?

Camus

17,627 次观看 • 5 个月前