正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

The state of Washington state - it's not looking good. HEYING: "Could functional systems be better with more money? Usually that is the case. When you have non-functional systems that demonstrably don't do anything good with the money they've got, you don't keep, not even asking, but DEMANDING more...

thedarkhorsepod's profile picture

The DarkHorse Podcast

54,799 subscribers

11,216 次观看 • 6 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Dr. Heather Heying says sunscreen talk is broken: it’s not just about cancer. "The idea that the only thing you should be thinking about with regard to sunscreen—should I use it or not?—is your risk of skin cancer, is patently wrong. So again, be thinking about the effects on your overall health and whether or not being exposed to the sun might be good for you. And the answer has to be yes. The answer has to be yes, because we evolved outdoors under the sun." Should you slather yourself in sunscreen, stay indoors, or seek moderate exposure to the sun that grows in intensity that more your skin becomes acclimated to the season? Heather E Heying and Bret Weinstein share how they, as evolutionary biologists, approach the subject of sun exposure in Episode 331 of The Evolutionary Lens.
1:12

Dr. Heather Heying says sunscreen talk is broken: it’s not just about cancer. "The idea that the only thing you should be thinking about with regard to sunscreen—should I use it or not?—is your risk of skin cancer, is patently wrong. So again, be thinking about the effects on your overall health and whether or not being exposed to the sun might be good for you. And the answer has to be yes. The answer has to be yes, because we evolved outdoors under the sun." Should you slather yourself in sunscreen, stay indoors, or seek moderate exposure to the sun that grows in intensity that more your skin becomes acclimated to the season? Heather E Heying and Bret Weinstein share how they, as evolutionary biologists, approach the subject of sun exposure in Episode 331 of The Evolutionary Lens.

The DarkHorse Podcast

39,513 次观看 • 3 个月前

Weinstein: We are going to talk about this Hantavirus situation. I think you will get a view here that is different from what you hear elsewhere. We are going to do some integrating of evolutionary biology with some of the value we got from the graduate level education we were put through during COVID. So we've learned some of the propaganda tricks and some of the medical and public health tricks, and we're trying to divine what is going on with this strange story. So that is upcoming. Heying: I also want to talk about the drought in Washington state. Weinstein: Yes, and maybe a relationship between such things, which is— Heying: There is at least a thread to tie the two stories together, yes.
0:43

Weinstein: We are going to talk about this Hantavirus situation. I think you will get a view here that is different from what you hear elsewhere. We are going to do some integrating of evolutionary biology with some of the value we got from the graduate level education we were put through during COVID. So we've learned some of the propaganda tricks and some of the medical and public health tricks, and we're trying to divine what is going on with this strange story. So that is upcoming. Heying: I also want to talk about the drought in Washington state. Weinstein: Yes, and maybe a relationship between such things, which is— Heying: There is at least a thread to tie the two stories together, yes.

The DarkHorse Podcast

41,024 次观看 • 4 个月前

Julia Davies, "It might sound like wealthy people pay more in tax, that's because they disproportionately have more of the wealth of the UK" Patriotic Millionaires UK "I'm speaking here as a wealthy person, so I would have to pay the proposed 2% wealth tax that we're talking about" "No matter what the lobby groups who don't want to tax wealth will tell us, it is not going to be a problem for wealthy people to pay that" "Who it is a problem for the moment is working people and small-medium sized businesses" "So while we are delaying implementing more measures to fairly tax wealth, we are increasing the strain on working people and small to medium sized businesses" "We have increased national insurance on working people.. We should have applied national insurance to income on wealth. That would have brought in a lot of money and it wouldn't have put our small businesses under strain" "I represent a group called Patriotic Millionaires, we absolutely don't think wealth is a dirty word, suggesting that asking for fair taxation of wealth is saying wealth is something dirty is nonsensical" "Asking for fair taxation of wealth is not punishing anyone. Asking working people to pay more national insurance and income tax, that is punishing people"
2:59

Julia Davies, "It might sound like wealthy people pay more in tax, that's because they disproportionately have more of the wealth of the UK" Patriotic Millionaires UK "I'm speaking here as a wealthy person, so I would have to pay the proposed 2% wealth tax that we're talking about" "No matter what the lobby groups who don't want to tax wealth will tell us, it is not going to be a problem for wealthy people to pay that" "Who it is a problem for the moment is working people and small-medium sized businesses" "So while we are delaying implementing more measures to fairly tax wealth, we are increasing the strain on working people and small to medium sized businesses" "We have increased national insurance on working people.. We should have applied national insurance to income on wealth. That would have brought in a lot of money and it wouldn't have put our small businesses under strain" "I represent a group called Patriotic Millionaires, we absolutely don't think wealth is a dirty word, suggesting that asking for fair taxation of wealth is saying wealth is something dirty is nonsensical" "Asking for fair taxation of wealth is not punishing anyone. Asking working people to pay more national insurance and income tax, that is punishing people"

Farrukh

28,211 次观看 • 1 年前

The "stay in your lane" critique "is narrow-minded, assumes that expertise is both perfect and static, and is a kind of gatekeeping which serves, mostly to preserve the autonomy and unquestioning authority of those currently in power, as opposed to those who don't have it." - Heather E Heying on Episode 289 of The Evolutionary Lens, available wherever you subscribe to podcasts.
21:00

The "stay in your lane" critique "is narrow-minded, assumes that expertise is both perfect and static, and is a kind of gatekeeping which serves, mostly to preserve the autonomy and unquestioning authority of those currently in power, as opposed to those who don't have it." - Heather E Heying on Episode 289 of The Evolutionary Lens, available wherever you subscribe to podcasts.

The DarkHorse Podcast

23,825 次观看 • 1 年前

Rep. Ro Khanna explains “the sticking point” of the government shutdown: Emergency Medicaid for Illegal immigrants Chamath: “Ro, the argument on the other side says that the tax credits and the healthcare subsidies will largely go to folks that are here illegally.” “Can you confirm or debunk that?” Rep. Ro Khanna: “First of all, it's a very small portion of people that we're talking about. So, 90% is not anything to do with those who are undocumented.” “That's just the math, right? So we can argue about the 10%, but we have in this country something called Emergency Medicaid.” “What does that mean? If you're undocumented and you show up to the hospital, we will take care of you.” “I believe that is correct. I don't think if you're undocumented and you show up to a hospital that you should be denied care.” “Well, who pays for that? We have an Emergency Medicaid program.” “And I guess if you mean that when you fund Medicaid, when you fund the Affordable Care Act that you're saying, you're funding some of it for undocumented people who are showing up in emergency situations, then yeah, you're funding that.” “My view of it is that, let's be honest, that's not where the big money and the budgets are.” “You're talking about a small group of folks.” “You can argue the cultural point about it. But don't make that the numbers point.”
1:08

Rep. Ro Khanna explains “the sticking point” of the government shutdown: Emergency Medicaid for Illegal immigrants Chamath: “Ro, the argument on the other side says that the tax credits and the healthcare subsidies will largely go to folks that are here illegally.” “Can you confirm or debunk that?” Rep. Ro Khanna: “First of all, it's a very small portion of people that we're talking about. So, 90% is not anything to do with those who are undocumented.” “That's just the math, right? So we can argue about the 10%, but we have in this country something called Emergency Medicaid.” “What does that mean? If you're undocumented and you show up to the hospital, we will take care of you.” “I believe that is correct. I don't think if you're undocumented and you show up to a hospital that you should be denied care.” “Well, who pays for that? We have an Emergency Medicaid program.” “And I guess if you mean that when you fund Medicaid, when you fund the Affordable Care Act that you're saying, you're funding some of it for undocumented people who are showing up in emergency situations, then yeah, you're funding that.” “My view of it is that, let's be honest, that's not where the big money and the budgets are.” “You're talking about a small group of folks.” “You can argue the cultural point about it. But don't make that the numbers point.”

The All-In Podcast

304,977 次观看 • 1 年前

Zack Polanski, "It's a tax on assets of 1% on £10m+ or 2% on £1 billion+" "The most obvious win here is to bring Capital Gains Tax in line with Income Tax" "The reason why that's important is right now we tax earned income more than we tax unearned wealth" "If you're a cleaner, you could be paying more tax than the person who owns the building that you're cleaning" "It's completely absurd. It's a political choice. We can make different political choices" "When Ruth said it's difficult to find wealth, that there are practical challenges, so let's spend more money on HMRC" "We keep underspending on the NHS, it shouldn't be a surprise we have a sick population" "So yes, spend money up front on public infrastructure, on our services, but we're getting that money back, in terms of a much better economy and a healthier population" "It's outrageous that we would have any more spending cuts" "People in this country are tired and exhausted" "They see the cost of living raised and they're not seeing their wages go with it" "We have wealth in this country that we can redistribute" "So the idea that people who are already struggling, as a result of political decisions and consequences of the past decade, are going to have to suffer another round of cuts" "It's not a surprise to me when Nigel Farage talks about connecting with people's fear and anger, that's he doing so well" "Of course I say this because Reform UK's solutions will make things even worse" "That's why the Greens are doing so well right now, we're offering hope and some practical solutions" "To say we don't need to cut spending and actually we need to tax the wealthier in our country more and invest in public services"
1:50

Zack Polanski, "It's a tax on assets of 1% on £10m+ or 2% on £1 billion+" "The most obvious win here is to bring Capital Gains Tax in line with Income Tax" "The reason why that's important is right now we tax earned income more than we tax unearned wealth" "If you're a cleaner, you could be paying more tax than the person who owns the building that you're cleaning" "It's completely absurd. It's a political choice. We can make different political choices" "When Ruth said it's difficult to find wealth, that there are practical challenges, so let's spend more money on HMRC" "We keep underspending on the NHS, it shouldn't be a surprise we have a sick population" "So yes, spend money up front on public infrastructure, on our services, but we're getting that money back, in terms of a much better economy and a healthier population" "It's outrageous that we would have any more spending cuts" "People in this country are tired and exhausted" "They see the cost of living raised and they're not seeing their wages go with it" "We have wealth in this country that we can redistribute" "So the idea that people who are already struggling, as a result of political decisions and consequences of the past decade, are going to have to suffer another round of cuts" "It's not a surprise to me when Nigel Farage talks about connecting with people's fear and anger, that's he doing so well" "Of course I say this because Reform UK's solutions will make things even worse" "That's why the Greens are doing so well right now, we're offering hope and some practical solutions" "To say we don't need to cut spending and actually we need to tax the wealthier in our country more and invest in public services"

Farrukh

309,579 次观看 • 11 个月前

Iman Shumpert says having kids is what really drains athletes' money. Iman Shumpert: Another thing... when y'all having y'all kids, moms be having hella kids, but it's like... they're court system kids. “While you're playing, that baby mama is draining your account every month, but you don't even see it because you're still playing. “The moment you stop... you're going to start feeling it.” Interviewer : If you're making $40 million a year, $20,000 or $30,000 a month doesn't feel like anything. Then you've got private school tuition on top of that. Iman Shumpert: I do numbers really well. I saw that Odell quote, and I don't think he was talking about himself. “He was just saying he understands how people mess that kind of money up.” “But the one thing he didn't talk about... is the kids, bro.” “That's the real wrinkle. You can live however you want while you're playing, but once you start having them kids, money keeps going out every month. “Then after you're done playing, you're not making as much anymore... and now you really feel it leaving. Interviewer: And then you've got to pay the attorneys... yours and hers. Iman Shumpert: Yeah... that's what I'm saying. Interviewer: And then the house. You love your mom and dad, but don't go buy them a $3 million house. That's a lot of upkeep. “When you're making that kind of money, you don't miss it. “But when money keeps going out... and nothing's coming in...” “Just keep pouring it out and don't put anything back in... you'll see how fast it goes. You're going to be pissed. That's what people don't realize
2:32

Iman Shumpert says having kids is what really drains athletes' money. Iman Shumpert: Another thing... when y'all having y'all kids, moms be having hella kids, but it's like... they're court system kids. “While you're playing, that baby mama is draining your account every month, but you don't even see it because you're still playing. “The moment you stop... you're going to start feeling it.” Interviewer : If you're making $40 million a year, $20,000 or $30,000 a month doesn't feel like anything. Then you've got private school tuition on top of that. Iman Shumpert: I do numbers really well. I saw that Odell quote, and I don't think he was talking about himself. “He was just saying he understands how people mess that kind of money up.” “But the one thing he didn't talk about... is the kids, bro.” “That's the real wrinkle. You can live however you want while you're playing, but once you start having them kids, money keeps going out every month. “Then after you're done playing, you're not making as much anymore... and now you really feel it leaving. Interviewer: And then you've got to pay the attorneys... yours and hers. Iman Shumpert: Yeah... that's what I'm saying. Interviewer: And then the house. You love your mom and dad, but don't go buy them a $3 million house. That's a lot of upkeep. “When you're making that kind of money, you don't miss it. “But when money keeps going out... and nothing's coming in...” “Just keep pouring it out and don't put anything back in... you'll see how fast it goes. You're going to be pissed. That's what people don't realize

Jeff

423,931 次观看 • 2 个月前

If you remember one thing from today, this is the important thing. The right thing to do when you have a pattern that has been observed that you are trying to understand the explanation for is to put every conceivable hypothesis on the table. Now, I think you Heather (Heying) say this more than anybody else. You are frequently reminding people that the right way to figure out what's true is to place every hypothesis on the table. Some of them may be ridiculous on their face and it may take you all of five seconds to find an example that falsifies that hypothesis. Boom, it's gone. Never need to think about it again. And then you're left with some smaller number that don't falsify so easily. And the job is to falsify them one by one. And hopefully, if you've done the job correctly, remember the job is put every hypothesis on the table. If you've done the job correctly, one of them will refuse to falsify at the point that you've tried to falsify all of them. And one of them has refused to be falsified, even though you've tried, it becomes the theory and there should only ever be one theory to explain a particular pattern. Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying on "Just Asking Questions," Episode 34,3 discuss logic and scientific thinking. Find DarkHorse The Evolutionary Lens wherever you subscribe to podcasts transcribed and with timestamps.
1:11

If you remember one thing from today, this is the important thing. The right thing to do when you have a pattern that has been observed that you are trying to understand the explanation for is to put every conceivable hypothesis on the table. Now, I think you Heather (Heying) say this more than anybody else. You are frequently reminding people that the right way to figure out what's true is to place every hypothesis on the table. Some of them may be ridiculous on their face and it may take you all of five seconds to find an example that falsifies that hypothesis. Boom, it's gone. Never need to think about it again. And then you're left with some smaller number that don't falsify so easily. And the job is to falsify them one by one. And hopefully, if you've done the job correctly, remember the job is put every hypothesis on the table. If you've done the job correctly, one of them will refuse to falsify at the point that you've tried to falsify all of them. And one of them has refused to be falsified, even though you've tried, it becomes the theory and there should only ever be one theory to explain a particular pattern. Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying on "Just Asking Questions," Episode 34,3 discuss logic and scientific thinking. Find DarkHorse The Evolutionary Lens wherever you subscribe to podcasts transcribed and with timestamps.

The DarkHorse Podcast

11,790 次观看 • 13 天前

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
2:35

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

French economist Thomas Piketty explains to Zack Polanski that how a local wealth tax should Include an exit tax, adding rich should pay their fair share in proportion: "Let me make very clear that individual countries like Britain or France can very well have uh, uh, progressive wealth tax and billionaire on their own right away." "They don't need to ask the permission of their neighbors or the United Nation, or they don't need to wait for world unanimity." "The only thing they need to do when they do wealth tax on their own is to make clear that if you have made your wealth in, in Britain for many decades by benefiting from the public services in Britain, by the legal system of Britain, because creating wealth, accumulating wealth is always the outcome, uh, of a collective process where you use institution, the legal system, the education system, the health system, the transportation system, the road system." "If you have benefited from this during many decades, you cannot simply walk away at age 50 or 60 or whatever and say, okay now, bye bye, I don't pay tax anymore." "So the first, the only important thing you need to do when you set up a wealth tax, say in Britain, is to say even if you go away, you keep paying." "The way the Americans do it, is by saying as long as you keep U.S. citizenship, you pay even if you're in Switzerland, wherever you want." "I don't think this is the best way." "I think a better way would be to make people pay in proportion to the years of, of residents that they have spent in the country." "So if you have spent your first 50 years in Britain, you move at age 51, well that's fine, do that." "But you know, you keep paying 50, 51st of the tax that you would have paid." "So the fiscal cost for the treasury is quite limited." "Yes, so that's the important point." "And once you have said that, I think all the arguments about tax evasion sort of fall down almost immediately." "Now people will tell you, oh, but you cannot do that." "Of course you can." "The problem is that we have put ourselves in a situation to think that the very specific treaties about capital flows, what we have come to call free capital flows that were set up in the 80s and 90s, are sort of law of nature." "The idea that you have a sacralized right to benefit from the public services legal system in a country as much as you want, and then you push on a button and you can transfer your assets wherever you want and nobody can follow you and nobody can make you pay." "And it's a sort of new sacralized right." "But look, this is a uh, completely crazy system." "This is a machinery to make normal people middle class and lower class people hate globalization." "And if you tell people there's nothing you can change about this." "There's nothing you can change about inequality, about economic policy." "We see the only thing government can do is to control their border for, uh, migrants." "And then of course, 20 years, 30 years later, the entire political conversation is about border control and identity." "But that's because you close the discussion entirely about, uh, uh, economic and fiscal policy." "So we have to reopen the discussion." "And the first thing to do that is to question free capital flows in the sense that you don't have the freedom to escape taxation after you have benefited from the public services and public institution of a country during so long." "So if you address this directly and make clear that you will keep paying in proportion to the number of years you have stayed in Britain, then um, um, I mean, you can also combine that with rules about the location of the assets themselves." "As long as the assets are located in Britain, of course you can make people pay." "But it's important to, to have also the number of years you've spent in the country so that even if you move your assets away, you keep paying and you don't have the choice otherwise your assets can be taken away from you if some of them are in Britain, if you return to Britain and you've not paid your tax, well, you will be subject to the sanction which anybody not paying your tax." "So that's the first big thing, is that you don't need to have a world wealth tax." "You can do a lot at the level of Britain." "And we should not use this global wealth tax idea as an excuse not to do at, uh, the country level what national governments can do at their own level."
4:24

French economist Thomas Piketty explains to Zack Polanski that how a local wealth tax should Include an exit tax, adding rich should pay their fair share in proportion: "Let me make very clear that individual countries like Britain or France can very well have uh, uh, progressive wealth tax and billionaire on their own right away." "They don't need to ask the permission of their neighbors or the United Nation, or they don't need to wait for world unanimity." "The only thing they need to do when they do wealth tax on their own is to make clear that if you have made your wealth in, in Britain for many decades by benefiting from the public services in Britain, by the legal system of Britain, because creating wealth, accumulating wealth is always the outcome, uh, of a collective process where you use institution, the legal system, the education system, the health system, the transportation system, the road system." "If you have benefited from this during many decades, you cannot simply walk away at age 50 or 60 or whatever and say, okay now, bye bye, I don't pay tax anymore." "So the first, the only important thing you need to do when you set up a wealth tax, say in Britain, is to say even if you go away, you keep paying." "The way the Americans do it, is by saying as long as you keep U.S. citizenship, you pay even if you're in Switzerland, wherever you want." "I don't think this is the best way." "I think a better way would be to make people pay in proportion to the years of, of residents that they have spent in the country." "So if you have spent your first 50 years in Britain, you move at age 51, well that's fine, do that." "But you know, you keep paying 50, 51st of the tax that you would have paid." "So the fiscal cost for the treasury is quite limited." "Yes, so that's the important point." "And once you have said that, I think all the arguments about tax evasion sort of fall down almost immediately." "Now people will tell you, oh, but you cannot do that." "Of course you can." "The problem is that we have put ourselves in a situation to think that the very specific treaties about capital flows, what we have come to call free capital flows that were set up in the 80s and 90s, are sort of law of nature." "The idea that you have a sacralized right to benefit from the public services legal system in a country as much as you want, and then you push on a button and you can transfer your assets wherever you want and nobody can follow you and nobody can make you pay." "And it's a sort of new sacralized right." "But look, this is a uh, completely crazy system." "This is a machinery to make normal people middle class and lower class people hate globalization." "And if you tell people there's nothing you can change about this." "There's nothing you can change about inequality, about economic policy." "We see the only thing government can do is to control their border for, uh, migrants." "And then of course, 20 years, 30 years later, the entire political conversation is about border control and identity." "But that's because you close the discussion entirely about, uh, uh, economic and fiscal policy." "So we have to reopen the discussion." "And the first thing to do that is to question free capital flows in the sense that you don't have the freedom to escape taxation after you have benefited from the public services and public institution of a country during so long." "So if you address this directly and make clear that you will keep paying in proportion to the number of years you have stayed in Britain, then um, um, I mean, you can also combine that with rules about the location of the assets themselves." "As long as the assets are located in Britain, of course you can make people pay." "But it's important to, to have also the number of years you've spent in the country so that even if you move your assets away, you keep paying and you don't have the choice otherwise your assets can be taken away from you if some of them are in Britain, if you return to Britain and you've not paid your tax, well, you will be subject to the sanction which anybody not paying your tax." "So that's the first big thing, is that you don't need to have a world wealth tax." "You can do a lot at the level of Britain." "And we should not use this global wealth tax idea as an excuse not to do at, uh, the country level what national governments can do at their own level."

Farrukh

246,134 次观看 • 1 个月前

Washington's 9.9% "Millionaires Tax" Isn't That Simple Bret Weinstein explains, "If you stop businesses from starting here, and if you drive people so that they move elsewhere—even though it's difficult to do—then the point is the tax base dries up, which then forces you to become even more predatory for the people who stayed. And that's really the thing, right? They're setting themselves up so that they have to go after more and more people, because the people who are starting new businesses are not going to do it here."
14:03

Washington's 9.9% "Millionaires Tax" Isn't That Simple Bret Weinstein explains, "If you stop businesses from starting here, and if you drive people so that they move elsewhere—even though it's difficult to do—then the point is the tax base dries up, which then forces you to become even more predatory for the people who stayed. And that's really the thing, right? They're setting themselves up so that they have to go after more and more people, because the people who are starting new businesses are not going to do it here."

The DarkHorse Podcast

43,212 次观看 • 6 个月前

Rich Roll on why waiting to "feel like it" is a trap: "You can't think your way into the mood that you seek or the state of mind that you aspire to inhabit. Action is the only thing that can trigger that change." Rich uses running as the perfect illustration of this principle. Imagine you wake up in the morning and you're supposed to do a run because you're training for a race. You don't feel like it. So what do most of us do? "We all resort to that state where we think, 'Well, I don't want to do it right now. I'll just wait until I feel like doing it and then I'll do it then.'" But here's the problem with that logic: "If you're waiting until you feel like doing something, chances are you're probably never going to get to it." The mood you're hoping will arrive on its own? It's not coming. Not without action first. "To take the action despite how you feel about it is the thing that catalyzes the state change." You don't run because you feel motivated. You feel motivated because you ran. He points to what every runner knows from experience: "When they finish the run, they're always glad that they did it. They don't generally regret it. And then they feel better." Notice the sequence. The good feeling comes after the action, not before it. The state change is the reward for showing up, not the prerequisite. And this isn't just about running. As Rich puts it: "That example is applicable to all areas of life." The workout you're avoiding. The conversation you're delaying. The project you're putting off until you're "in the right headspace." You're waiting for a feeling that only exists on the other side of doing the thing.
0:59

Rich Roll on why waiting to "feel like it" is a trap: "You can't think your way into the mood that you seek or the state of mind that you aspire to inhabit. Action is the only thing that can trigger that change." Rich uses running as the perfect illustration of this principle. Imagine you wake up in the morning and you're supposed to do a run because you're training for a race. You don't feel like it. So what do most of us do? "We all resort to that state where we think, 'Well, I don't want to do it right now. I'll just wait until I feel like doing it and then I'll do it then.'" But here's the problem with that logic: "If you're waiting until you feel like doing something, chances are you're probably never going to get to it." The mood you're hoping will arrive on its own? It's not coming. Not without action first. "To take the action despite how you feel about it is the thing that catalyzes the state change." You don't run because you feel motivated. You feel motivated because you ran. He points to what every runner knows from experience: "When they finish the run, they're always glad that they did it. They don't generally regret it. And then they feel better." Notice the sequence. The good feeling comes after the action, not before it. The state change is the reward for showing up, not the prerequisite. And this isn't just about running. As Rich puts it: "That example is applicable to all areas of life." The workout you're avoiding. The conversation you're delaying. The project you're putting off until you're "in the right headspace." You're waiting for a feeling that only exists on the other side of doing the thing.

Kevin Tanaka

10,256 次观看 • 5 个月前

🚨 I AGREE: Abolish property taxes. Everywhere. RON DESANTIS: "To say you're just enjoying property and all of a sudden the value [goes up] - you have to pony up [to the government?] We don't really do that in anything else!" "If they're going to come tell you your house is worth twice as much than what you purchased it, and you've got to pay higher taxes as a result, that's a NEGATIVE of having rising property values. It's an unrealized gain!" "If you buy a stock, and you hold it, then you're taxed when you SELL it. The stock doubles, they don't just tax you as you hold it. Unrealized gains is NOT the way you want to run a tax system, but our property tax system basically relies on these unrealized gains."
1:33

🚨 I AGREE: Abolish property taxes. Everywhere. RON DESANTIS: "To say you're just enjoying property and all of a sudden the value [goes up] - you have to pony up [to the government?] We don't really do that in anything else!" "If they're going to come tell you your house is worth twice as much than what you purchased it, and you've got to pay higher taxes as a result, that's a NEGATIVE of having rising property values. It's an unrealized gain!" "If you buy a stock, and you hold it, then you're taxed when you SELL it. The stock doubles, they don't just tax you as you hold it. Unrealized gains is NOT the way you want to run a tax system, but our property tax system basically relies on these unrealized gains."

Eric Daugherty

1,255,612 次观看 • 1 年前

How about it Andy Burnham planning on wealth taxes on the rich or a short three year stay in Downing street? Gary Stevenson, "If we don't get wealth taxes now, I guarantee you, Andy Burnham will fail on the economy" "That means he will fail at the election, and that means it will be Nigel Farage and Reform UK" Krishnan Guru-Murthy, "Describe the wealth tax you want" Gary Stevenson, "It's a tax on wealth, not on income, of 2% on wealth above £10 million" "So if you're worth £11m, you'll pay 2% on that £1m, which is £20,000 a year" "If you're worth £20m, you'll pay 2% on that £10m, which is £200,000 a year" "It would only be paid by the rich" "The idea is that it will stop the trend we are in where the working class gets poorer, the middle class gets poorer, the gov goes bankrupt, and all of that wealth flows into the bank accounts of the richest people in the country" "We have a tax system that is good at taxing working people, it is not taxing the rich at all" "Unless we can find some way to stop living standards from falling, it's going to be Farage, it's going to be Reform UK"
4:47

How about it Andy Burnham planning on wealth taxes on the rich or a short three year stay in Downing street? Gary Stevenson, "If we don't get wealth taxes now, I guarantee you, Andy Burnham will fail on the economy" "That means he will fail at the election, and that means it will be Nigel Farage and Reform UK" Krishnan Guru-Murthy, "Describe the wealth tax you want" Gary Stevenson, "It's a tax on wealth, not on income, of 2% on wealth above £10 million" "So if you're worth £11m, you'll pay 2% on that £1m, which is £20,000 a year" "If you're worth £20m, you'll pay 2% on that £10m, which is £200,000 a year" "It would only be paid by the rich" "The idea is that it will stop the trend we are in where the working class gets poorer, the middle class gets poorer, the gov goes bankrupt, and all of that wealth flows into the bank accounts of the richest people in the country" "We have a tax system that is good at taxing working people, it is not taxing the rich at all" "Unless we can find some way to stop living standards from falling, it's going to be Farage, it's going to be Reform UK"

Farrukh

84,114 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨 WTF?! JD Vance just exposed that the Democrat AG of Wisconsin is REFUSING to verify recipients of federal welfare benefits are searching for work Cut off the funds! "When I hear the Attorney General of this state saying that we don't want to confirm that people are looking for work before they receive federal benefits, my natural question is, why are you so against people looking for a job?!" "That's it. We're not saying that we want anybody to go without medical benefits." "What we're saying is that we want you, if you're going to receive these benefits, we want you at least to try to find a job." "And I think in the same way that every single person in this room and every single tax paying citizen of Wisconsin hands their money over to the government, it's totally reasonable for them to expect the beneficiaries of that money to at least be looking for work. That's the contract. And if you violate that contract, you shouldn't get a dime of federal money."
0:52

🚨 WTF?! JD Vance just exposed that the Democrat AG of Wisconsin is REFUSING to verify recipients of federal welfare benefits are searching for work Cut off the funds! "When I hear the Attorney General of this state saying that we don't want to confirm that people are looking for work before they receive federal benefits, my natural question is, why are you so against people looking for a job?!" "That's it. We're not saying that we want anybody to go without medical benefits." "What we're saying is that we want you, if you're going to receive these benefits, we want you at least to try to find a job." "And I think in the same way that every single person in this room and every single tax paying citizen of Wisconsin hands their money over to the government, it's totally reasonable for them to expect the beneficiaries of that money to at least be looking for work. That's the contract. And if you violate that contract, you shouldn't get a dime of federal money."

Eric Daugherty

52,188 次观看 • 2 个月前

Woody Harrelson says California legalized weed but still treats it like you're doing something wrong "It's poison, they treat it either it's legal, it's not. They treat it like you're lucky that we allow you to do this. And so we're gonna tax you 35%. Which is way more, it's more than double anything. I don't even know what's second, but like guns, 10%, right?" "Just to give you, what's beer? Beer's like, what, 3% or something. It's ridiculous that they can just tax the fuck out of you and make it so hard. I don't want to bitch and moan, I'm a happy person, well, generally I'm not happy about this." "I'm not happy, I'm never happy when anybody fucks with my money. I'm gangster like that. Well, they're fucking with my money."
0:50

Woody Harrelson says California legalized weed but still treats it like you're doing something wrong "It's poison, they treat it either it's legal, it's not. They treat it like you're lucky that we allow you to do this. And so we're gonna tax you 35%. Which is way more, it's more than double anything. I don't even know what's second, but like guns, 10%, right?" "Just to give you, what's beer? Beer's like, what, 3% or something. It's ridiculous that they can just tax the fuck out of you and make it so hard. I don't want to bitch and moan, I'm a happy person, well, generally I'm not happy about this." "I'm not happy, I'm never happy when anybody fucks with my money. I'm gangster like that. Well, they're fucking with my money."

katsu

158,956 次观看 • 2 个月前