Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

This is why Britain’s men have gone SOFT. We indulge them like babies. Let a self-made working woman get even a sideways look at the forgiveness you lot bathe in YOU POUND-SHOP PATRIOTS. Angela Rayner, poor teenage single mom who pulled her self by the bootstraps: wrong advice, £40k,... show more

Stella Tsantekidou

11,791 subscribers

40,452 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Gary Stevenson, "I become obsessed.. I didn't realise how much money people made in the city (of London)" "In 2010 I saw an older generation who could afford to own their own properties and I saw my generation that would never be able to afford that" "I could see what we had was a structural crisis of growing inequality that's getting worse and worse" Richard Madeley, "You were making your fortune off the back of other people's misery" Gary Stevenson, "I was very poor growing up, we just wanted to make money. Then I go on a trading floor, with the rich people, who also want to make money" "In 2011 I became a multi-millionaire by betting the economy would collapse. They just paid me millions of pounds and said: do it again" "The traders and the politicians do not get hurt when inequality increases" Charlotte Hawkins, "If you were Chancellor what would you be doing?" Gary Stevenson, "This is not a temporary recession. If we do not deal with this crisis, there will be worsening inequality. The super rich will get richer. The welfare state will shut down. Ordinary families can't buy a home" "We currently have a tax system which taxes ordinary people 30%, 40%, 50% while billionaires like the Duke of Westminster inherit £10 billion and pay nothing" "We need to change the tax system so we tax ordinary people like your viewers less and tax the rich and super rich more" Richard Madeley, "What kind of wealth tax would you introduce?" Gary Stevenson, "When I talk about a wealth tax, it's not about income, its not about work, it's not about bankers, lawyers, youtubers or TV presenters, it's about 2% on assets over £10 million" Charlotte Hawkins, "Countries tried wealth taxes, but scrapped them and millionaires are leaving the UK" Gary Stevenson, "This data about millionaires leaving is a bit dodgy" "People like me campaign to tax the rich. When it comes in the rich lobby the politicians and get loopholes put in" "I always remember when the Conservatives put a tax on second home buyers and they put an exemption for people who buy more than 7 at once. Then Jeremy Hunt went and bought 7" "I know it's difficult to tax the rich but if we don't do this our society will collapse"

Gary Stevenson, "I become obsessed.. I didn't realise how much money people made in the city (of London)" "In 2010 I saw an older generation who could afford to own their own properties and I saw my generation that would never be able to afford that" "I could see what we had was a structural crisis of growing inequality that's getting worse and worse" Richard Madeley, "You were making your fortune off the back of other people's misery" Gary Stevenson, "I was very poor growing up, we just wanted to make money. Then I go on a trading floor, with the rich people, who also want to make money" "In 2011 I became a multi-millionaire by betting the economy would collapse. They just paid me millions of pounds and said: do it again" "The traders and the politicians do not get hurt when inequality increases" Charlotte Hawkins, "If you were Chancellor what would you be doing?" Gary Stevenson, "This is not a temporary recession. If we do not deal with this crisis, there will be worsening inequality. The super rich will get richer. The welfare state will shut down. Ordinary families can't buy a home" "We currently have a tax system which taxes ordinary people 30%, 40%, 50% while billionaires like the Duke of Westminster inherit £10 billion and pay nothing" "We need to change the tax system so we tax ordinary people like your viewers less and tax the rich and super rich more" Richard Madeley, "What kind of wealth tax would you introduce?" Gary Stevenson, "When I talk about a wealth tax, it's not about income, its not about work, it's not about bankers, lawyers, youtubers or TV presenters, it's about 2% on assets over £10 million" Charlotte Hawkins, "Countries tried wealth taxes, but scrapped them and millionaires are leaving the UK" Gary Stevenson, "This data about millionaires leaving is a bit dodgy" "People like me campaign to tax the rich. When it comes in the rich lobby the politicians and get loopholes put in" "I always remember when the Conservatives put a tax on second home buyers and they put an exemption for people who buy more than 7 at once. Then Jeremy Hunt went and bought 7" "I know it's difficult to tax the rich but if we don't do this our society will collapse"

Farrukh

645,800 просмотров • 1 год назад

Camilla Tominey humiliated on #BBCQT Gary Stevenson explains how we have given away national assets to rich people, so we should tax rich people Camilla Tominey dismisses the call to tax rich people by saying everyone pays taxes Gary Stevenson explains to tax the rich on their wealth Camilla Tominey says taxing the rich doesn't work, then cites European efforts to do so, she cites Norway But Norway haven't scrapped their wealth tax - In 2021 Norway raised the wealth tax from 0.85% to 1.0%, and to 1.1% for the richest. Their wealth tax brings in 34.5 billion kroner (about £2 billion) Gary Stevenson answers citing the second home stamp duty tax brought in by the Conservatives which has a loophole exempting those who buy 7 homes or more at once citing Jeremy Hunt Fiona Bruce says she doesn't know if he did or didn't buy 7 homes In 2018 Jeremy Hunt bought 7 flats in Southampton, doing go he made use of the loophole and saved over £100,000 in stamp duty tax. Not only did he do this, but Hunt didn't initially declare the purchase. This was a big story, surprised Bruce didn't know about it Gary Stevenson then explains how these loopholes mean rich people avoid paying tax, and its everyday people who end up paying more Camilla Tominey now humiliated over the idea of a wealth tax, then shifts her position wondering if wealth taxes will go to the poorest and not train drivers who are better paid She's trying to compare millionaires with non millionaires to suggest that we shouldn't tax more millionaires This is like saying, can you guarantee that leaving the EU will drop immigration. Well it could have, but it didn't because the people who convinced others to Brexit, like Boris Johnson, increased legal immigration to this country She also knows that tax today is specifically allocated to specific causes, so she's trying to create a reason not to tax the rich In reality, the way any tax is allocated to spending is down to any specific government policy, so it isn't whether we do or dont have a wealth, it's whether government choses a policy that allocates the additional income that is earned But also, and this is the crucial part, she started saying that wealth taxes don't work, and then she ends saying that you can't guarantee that they will go to those who need it the most - these are two different positions, and the second one nullifies the first as its an admission that wealth taxes could work but she dismisses them because they may not go to those most in need If a wealth tax, helps society in any way, it has worked e.g. fixing potholes that benefits everyone, including the poorest The extent to which people go to to dismiss wealth taxes on the rich is astonishing, tragic, and it is only our society that loses out by not doing so

Camilla Tominey humiliated on #BBCQT Gary Stevenson explains how we have given away national assets to rich people, so we should tax rich people Camilla Tominey dismisses the call to tax rich people by saying everyone pays taxes Gary Stevenson explains to tax the rich on their wealth Camilla Tominey says taxing the rich doesn't work, then cites European efforts to do so, she cites Norway But Norway haven't scrapped their wealth tax - In 2021 Norway raised the wealth tax from 0.85% to 1.0%, and to 1.1% for the richest. Their wealth tax brings in 34.5 billion kroner (about £2 billion) Gary Stevenson answers citing the second home stamp duty tax brought in by the Conservatives which has a loophole exempting those who buy 7 homes or more at once citing Jeremy Hunt Fiona Bruce says she doesn't know if he did or didn't buy 7 homes In 2018 Jeremy Hunt bought 7 flats in Southampton, doing go he made use of the loophole and saved over £100,000 in stamp duty tax. Not only did he do this, but Hunt didn't initially declare the purchase. This was a big story, surprised Bruce didn't know about it Gary Stevenson then explains how these loopholes mean rich people avoid paying tax, and its everyday people who end up paying more Camilla Tominey now humiliated over the idea of a wealth tax, then shifts her position wondering if wealth taxes will go to the poorest and not train drivers who are better paid She's trying to compare millionaires with non millionaires to suggest that we shouldn't tax more millionaires This is like saying, can you guarantee that leaving the EU will drop immigration. Well it could have, but it didn't because the people who convinced others to Brexit, like Boris Johnson, increased legal immigration to this country She also knows that tax today is specifically allocated to specific causes, so she's trying to create a reason not to tax the rich In reality, the way any tax is allocated to spending is down to any specific government policy, so it isn't whether we do or dont have a wealth, it's whether government choses a policy that allocates the additional income that is earned But also, and this is the crucial part, she started saying that wealth taxes don't work, and then she ends saying that you can't guarantee that they will go to those who need it the most - these are two different positions, and the second one nullifies the first as its an admission that wealth taxes could work but she dismisses them because they may not go to those most in need If a wealth tax, helps society in any way, it has worked e.g. fixing potholes that benefits everyone, including the poorest The extent to which people go to to dismiss wealth taxes on the rich is astonishing, tragic, and it is only our society that loses out by not doing so

Farrukh

496,723 просмотров • 1 год назад

Isabel Oakeshott lecturing a man who has been dead only 3 days about “lies” is evil. She's a pathetic little bitch (I make no apologies) This is the woman behind Piggate and later admitted the source of the allegation “could have been slightly deranged” The woman who took 100,000 PRIVATE WhatsApps and handed them to the Telegraph. The woman who, during lockdown, attended a barbecue with Richard Tice and then joked about “testing her eyesight”. Richard Tice’s company is currently at the centre of a Metropolitan Police investigation into £500,000 of Reform donations... whilst you sit in Dubai, having moved there over the tax implications of private-school fees, while lecturing everyone else about honesty and accountability. Actually, Isabel, imagine if the press had published 288 articles scrutinising you ??? Your role with Arron Banks, what you knew about his Russian contacts???

Isabel Oakeshott lecturing a man who has been dead only 3 days about “lies” is evil. She's a pathetic little bitch (I make no apologies) This is the woman behind Piggate and later admitted the source of the allegation “could have been slightly deranged” The woman who took 100,000 PRIVATE WhatsApps and handed them to the Telegraph. The woman who, during lockdown, attended a barbecue with Richard Tice and then joked about “testing her eyesight”. Richard Tice’s company is currently at the centre of a Metropolitan Police investigation into £500,000 of Reform donations... whilst you sit in Dubai, having moved there over the tax implications of private-school fees, while lecturing everyone else about honesty and accountability. Actually, Isabel, imagine if the press had published 288 articles scrutinising you ??? Your role with Arron Banks, what you knew about his Russian contacts???

Narinder Kaur

156,749 просмотров • 1 день назад

🚨 BREAKING: IRS SCANDAL EXPOSED 🚨 You’re not going to believe this. Sen. Joni Ernst has revealed that IRS EMPLOYEES OWE ~$50,000,000 IN UNPAID TAXES. Yes. The people who enforce the tax laws… aren’t paying them. Let that sink in. Nearly 6,000 IRS employees, almost 10% of the agency, have significant unpaid tax balances. Average amount owed? About $8,000 per employee. These are not recent bills. Many are from prior years. Some didn’t even file. This isn’t a clerical issue. It’s a credibility crisis. These employees know exactly how the system works, what gets flagged, what doesn’t, and where enforcement is weak. That’s not just hypocrisy. That’s tax fraud risk inside the tax authority itself. So here’s the real question: Should Scott Bessent put IRS employees with unpaid taxes on probation, just like any other federal worker? Because, if the IRS won’t enforce the rules on itself, why should the public trust enforcement at all? Curious what you think. Please comment and hare.

🚨 BREAKING: IRS SCANDAL EXPOSED 🚨 You’re not going to believe this. Sen. Joni Ernst has revealed that IRS EMPLOYEES OWE ~$50,000,000 IN UNPAID TAXES. Yes. The people who enforce the tax laws… aren’t paying them. Let that sink in. Nearly 6,000 IRS employees, almost 10% of the agency, have significant unpaid tax balances. Average amount owed? About $8,000 per employee. These are not recent bills. Many are from prior years. Some didn’t even file. This isn’t a clerical issue. It’s a credibility crisis. These employees know exactly how the system works, what gets flagged, what doesn’t, and where enforcement is weak. That’s not just hypocrisy. That’s tax fraud risk inside the tax authority itself. So here’s the real question: Should Scott Bessent put IRS employees with unpaid taxes on probation, just like any other federal worker? Because, if the IRS won’t enforce the rules on itself, why should the public trust enforcement at all? Curious what you think. Please comment and hare.

Clinton Donnelly

2,298,902 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Talarico: Ken Paxton embodies everything that’s wrong with our political system. He was impeached by his own party for using his public office to enrich himself and his donors at our expense. And that kind of corruption is the rot at the core of this broken system. It’s why we can’t afford anything. It’s why we can’t get ahead no matter how hard we work—because billionaires buy these politicians like Ken Paxton, and then these puppet politicians turn around and rig the rules of the game in favor of the billionaires at our expense. And so this has been happening for 50 years in this country. Mega donors and their puppet politicians have been stealing from the American people, from the people of Texas, stealing the wealth that we created through their bribes, their bailouts, and their billionaire tax breaks. And so I look forward to not only running against Ken Paxton, but running against the broken system that he embodies.

Talarico: Ken Paxton embodies everything that’s wrong with our political system. He was impeached by his own party for using his public office to enrich himself and his donors at our expense. And that kind of corruption is the rot at the core of this broken system. It’s why we can’t afford anything. It’s why we can’t get ahead no matter how hard we work—because billionaires buy these politicians like Ken Paxton, and then these puppet politicians turn around and rig the rules of the game in favor of the billionaires at our expense. And so this has been happening for 50 years in this country. Mega donors and their puppet politicians have been stealing from the American people, from the people of Texas, stealing the wealth that we created through their bribes, their bailouts, and their billionaire tax breaks. And so I look forward to not only running against Ken Paxton, but running against the broken system that he embodies.

Acyn

56,200 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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."

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

245,008 просмотров • 9 дней назад

In 1972, a Stanford psychologist gave 4-year-olds a choice. "One marshmallow now or wait 15 minutes and get two." Rich kid waits. Poor kid eats it immediately. For 50 years, psychologists said this proved poor kids lack self-control. Wrong. Poor kids learned that promises get broken. The second marshmallow isn't coming. Professor Jiang Xueqin spent 50 minutes explaining why the poor kids are the rational ones: The psychologist was named Walter Mischel. He put a marshmallow in front of 4-year-olds and said: "You can have it now, or wait and get two." He tracked them for decades. The kids who waited did better at everything. His conclusion: success means delayed gratification. Long-term planning. Self-control. So educators built curricula around it. Teach kids self-control, resilience, self-assessment. They'll succeed. It didn't work. "If you take a bad student and teach him self-control, resilience, and self-assessment, the student doesn't actually get better." The reason is simple: correlation does not equal causation. Successful people wake up at 4am. But waking up at 4am won't make you successful. If you're successful, you wake up early because you're motivated. If you're successful, you have self-control because your environment rewards it. The traits don't cause success. Success causes the traits. Here's what actually determines success: "We know for a fact that rich people are much more likely to succeed than poor people. School doesn't really matter. If your parents are rich, you'll be successful. If your parents are poor, you will not." The difference starts with parenting. A rich kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "You made a mistake. Don't worry about it. Let me explain why fire is dangerous. You could burn yourself. We'd have to go to the doctor." A poor kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "Don't you ever do that again or I'll beat the crap out of you." Same lesson. Completely different worldview. The rich kid learns: the world is safe. I am respected. Adults explain things to me. The poor kid learns: the world is scary. I must fear authority. Don't ask questions. There's another difference. Rich parents keep promises. Poor parents can't. "Next week we'll go to Thailand." Next week, you go to Thailand. "Next week we'll go to McDonald's." But the paycheck isn't enough. "Sorry, we can't go anymore." Rich parents offer stability. Poor parents can only offer volatility. Now go back to the marshmallow test. "If you believe the teacher will keep his promise, you won't eat that marshmallow. If you think the teacher is lying, you will eat it." If you're a poor kid, you've learned that promises get broken. Adults lie. The second marshmallow probably isn't coming. So you eat the first one. That's not lack of self-control. That's rational decision-making. "Poor kids are not stupid. Poor kids are rational. They're responding to the circumstances they live in." The same logic applies to resilience. "The idea of resilience is that you believe the world will help you. If you're rich and you fail, someone will help you get up. If you're poor and you fail, that probably tells you that you shouldn't be doing this." Why try again when trying again has never worked? And self-assessment? "If you're a poor child who lives under a lot of stress, it's hard to be self-reflective. Because if you look back at yourself, all you think about is your pain and your stress." Here's the deeper structure. "As a poor person, if you want to survive, you have to obey authority. As a rich person, you maximize your outcome by negotiating with others." Poor parents command their children because that's what the world will demand. Obey the police. Obey the boss. Don't talk back. Rich parents teach their children to debate, argue, negotiate. Because that's their game. "From day one, rich kids know they're playing a different game." Here's something stranger. 500 students took an IQ test. Then they guessed their ranking. The top 5% thought they were top 20%. The test was easy for them, so they assumed it was easy for everyone. The bottom 5% thought they were average. "People who are stupid lack the capacity to know they're stupid." This is the Dunning-Kruger effect. And it explains why the most confident people are often the least competent. "This helps explain why the world is why it is. Often the people in power are stupid. They don't know they're stupid. They were confident." Can poor kids escape? "Yes. But it means leaving your community. You have to be extremely individualistic. Very ambitious. High risk tolerance. Most people don't have that." The professor is one of them. "I'm a poor kid who succeeded. My father was a dishwasher. But I left Canada for the United States. I got lucky." "You can work as hard as you want, but the chances are against you. It takes luck. And that's often the exception to the rule, not the rule itself." Here's what he wants you to understand: When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability or effort. We forget that a poor kid eating the marshmallow isn't weak. He's learned that waiting doesn't pay. We forget that a poor kid giving up isn't lazy. He's learned that no one's coming to help. We refuse to admit that the traits we associate with success are products of environment, not causes of it. The marshmallow test is about measuring childhood, not measuring character.

In 1972, a Stanford psychologist gave 4-year-olds a choice. "One marshmallow now or wait 15 minutes and get two." Rich kid waits. Poor kid eats it immediately. For 50 years, psychologists said this proved poor kids lack self-control. Wrong. Poor kids learned that promises get broken. The second marshmallow isn't coming. Professor Jiang Xueqin spent 50 minutes explaining why the poor kids are the rational ones: The psychologist was named Walter Mischel. He put a marshmallow in front of 4-year-olds and said: "You can have it now, or wait and get two." He tracked them for decades. The kids who waited did better at everything. His conclusion: success means delayed gratification. Long-term planning. Self-control. So educators built curricula around it. Teach kids self-control, resilience, self-assessment. They'll succeed. It didn't work. "If you take a bad student and teach him self-control, resilience, and self-assessment, the student doesn't actually get better." The reason is simple: correlation does not equal causation. Successful people wake up at 4am. But waking up at 4am won't make you successful. If you're successful, you wake up early because you're motivated. If you're successful, you have self-control because your environment rewards it. The traits don't cause success. Success causes the traits. Here's what actually determines success: "We know for a fact that rich people are much more likely to succeed than poor people. School doesn't really matter. If your parents are rich, you'll be successful. If your parents are poor, you will not." The difference starts with parenting. A rich kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "You made a mistake. Don't worry about it. Let me explain why fire is dangerous. You could burn yourself. We'd have to go to the doctor." A poor kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "Don't you ever do that again or I'll beat the crap out of you." Same lesson. Completely different worldview. The rich kid learns: the world is safe. I am respected. Adults explain things to me. The poor kid learns: the world is scary. I must fear authority. Don't ask questions. There's another difference. Rich parents keep promises. Poor parents can't. "Next week we'll go to Thailand." Next week, you go to Thailand. "Next week we'll go to McDonald's." But the paycheck isn't enough. "Sorry, we can't go anymore." Rich parents offer stability. Poor parents can only offer volatility. Now go back to the marshmallow test. "If you believe the teacher will keep his promise, you won't eat that marshmallow. If you think the teacher is lying, you will eat it." If you're a poor kid, you've learned that promises get broken. Adults lie. The second marshmallow probably isn't coming. So you eat the first one. That's not lack of self-control. That's rational decision-making. "Poor kids are not stupid. Poor kids are rational. They're responding to the circumstances they live in." The same logic applies to resilience. "The idea of resilience is that you believe the world will help you. If you're rich and you fail, someone will help you get up. If you're poor and you fail, that probably tells you that you shouldn't be doing this." Why try again when trying again has never worked? And self-assessment? "If you're a poor child who lives under a lot of stress, it's hard to be self-reflective. Because if you look back at yourself, all you think about is your pain and your stress." Here's the deeper structure. "As a poor person, if you want to survive, you have to obey authority. As a rich person, you maximize your outcome by negotiating with others." Poor parents command their children because that's what the world will demand. Obey the police. Obey the boss. Don't talk back. Rich parents teach their children to debate, argue, negotiate. Because that's their game. "From day one, rich kids know they're playing a different game." Here's something stranger. 500 students took an IQ test. Then they guessed their ranking. The top 5% thought they were top 20%. The test was easy for them, so they assumed it was easy for everyone. The bottom 5% thought they were average. "People who are stupid lack the capacity to know they're stupid." This is the Dunning-Kruger effect. And it explains why the most confident people are often the least competent. "This helps explain why the world is why it is. Often the people in power are stupid. They don't know they're stupid. They were confident." Can poor kids escape? "Yes. But it means leaving your community. You have to be extremely individualistic. Very ambitious. High risk tolerance. Most people don't have that." The professor is one of them. "I'm a poor kid who succeeded. My father was a dishwasher. But I left Canada for the United States. I got lucky." "You can work as hard as you want, but the chances are against you. It takes luck. And that's often the exception to the rule, not the rule itself." Here's what he wants you to understand: When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability or effort. We forget that a poor kid eating the marshmallow isn't weak. He's learned that waiting doesn't pay. We forget that a poor kid giving up isn't lazy. He's learned that no one's coming to help. We refuse to admit that the traits we associate with success are products of environment, not causes of it. The marshmallow test is about measuring childhood, not measuring character.

Jaynit

291,585 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

When people say things like ‘Why are people worried about wealth taxes that will never affect them’ it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works and why even people who aren’t rich, don’t want wealth taxes. Wealthy people like it or not, are amongst the most economically productive people in our country, the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of our income tax receipts. The top 1% are responsible for approx 340,000 jobs in the economy etc. Wealthy people are also best placed to restructure their tax affairs to avoid wealth taxes and the most geographically mobile in our country, leaving for them is as easy as rearranging dates in their calendar. There is a wealth of comparative data from other countries showing wealth taxes are economically damaging, difficult to implement, expensive to administer and never raise the levels of taxes promised. There is no country in world that has ever raised anywhere near the £25 billion cited as the potential amounts that would be raised from an annual wealth tax. If the wealthy leave that impacts our tax base, which inevitably means that everyone else who isn’t wealthy, has to pay more tax. If they leave they will shift their strategic focus and capital to wherever they go, which means that money that would otherwise would have been invested in the UK will go elsewhere. This is precisely why other countries like Italy have tax regimes specially designed to incentivise wealthy people to come, they understand that having wealthy people is great for tax receipts, job creation and economic growth. It’s very disingenuous to assume the reason why people don’t support wealth taxes is because they believe they will one day be in the 1%. They don’t support wealth taxes for the most part because they understand they simply do not work. Zack Polanski is a dangerous man who isn’t even clear in his own mind why we need wealth taxes. His commitment to wealth taxes is ideological rather than evidence based. In the interview he explains that there’s a lot of the wealth in the city of London yet at the same time maintains that wealth taxes aren’t needed for raising tax revenues but are principally for reducing wealth inequality. So you mean to tell me the goal is the force some of the most economically productive people to leave so that we can all be poorer collectively but be more equal? In a country where 53% of households take more out of the state in benefits than they put in, what do you think will happen to the tax burden for working /middle class people if the top 1% leave or restructure their tax affairs in such as way that reduces their exposure to the UK. We are already at a post world war high when it comes to the tax burden and we are in real time seeing the damage it is doing to business and investor confidence in the UK economy. Yet you somehow think that levying even more taxes will have no impact on ordinary people?

When people say things like ‘Why are people worried about wealth taxes that will never affect them’ it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works and why even people who aren’t rich, don’t want wealth taxes. Wealthy people like it or not, are amongst the most economically productive people in our country, the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of our income tax receipts. The top 1% are responsible for approx 340,000 jobs in the economy etc. Wealthy people are also best placed to restructure their tax affairs to avoid wealth taxes and the most geographically mobile in our country, leaving for them is as easy as rearranging dates in their calendar. There is a wealth of comparative data from other countries showing wealth taxes are economically damaging, difficult to implement, expensive to administer and never raise the levels of taxes promised. There is no country in world that has ever raised anywhere near the £25 billion cited as the potential amounts that would be raised from an annual wealth tax. If the wealthy leave that impacts our tax base, which inevitably means that everyone else who isn’t wealthy, has to pay more tax. If they leave they will shift their strategic focus and capital to wherever they go, which means that money that would otherwise would have been invested in the UK will go elsewhere. This is precisely why other countries like Italy have tax regimes specially designed to incentivise wealthy people to come, they understand that having wealthy people is great for tax receipts, job creation and economic growth. It’s very disingenuous to assume the reason why people don’t support wealth taxes is because they believe they will one day be in the 1%. They don’t support wealth taxes for the most part because they understand they simply do not work. Zack Polanski is a dangerous man who isn’t even clear in his own mind why we need wealth taxes. His commitment to wealth taxes is ideological rather than evidence based. In the interview he explains that there’s a lot of the wealth in the city of London yet at the same time maintains that wealth taxes aren’t needed for raising tax revenues but are principally for reducing wealth inequality. So you mean to tell me the goal is the force some of the most economically productive people to leave so that we can all be poorer collectively but be more equal? In a country where 53% of households take more out of the state in benefits than they put in, what do you think will happen to the tax burden for working /middle class people if the top 1% leave or restructure their tax affairs in such as way that reduces their exposure to the UK. We are already at a post world war high when it comes to the tax burden and we are in real time seeing the damage it is doing to business and investor confidence in the UK economy. Yet you somehow think that levying even more taxes will have no impact on ordinary people?

D 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

86,441 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

This woman is deranged. LOWER CLASS AISTRALIANS??? = LOW PAID = SQUANDER their money - WTF???? She uses the words "And the lower class Australians, okay, the ones who are not on high wages..." Oh dear, she's going to dig a fucking hole right there. These are "The battlers" she cultivates [Farms] for support. OR she is specifically targeting the #unemployed who actually don't benefit from the tax cuts and live on an income below the poverty line. Meanwhile, SHE got a $105,000 PAY RISE THIS financial year. Pauline Hanson wants you to believe middle-income earners are forgotten, while she pockets: → $349K+ a year, →enjoys free luxury flights, → Private car paid for →Exceptional superannuation → Huge expense account →and cries about tax cuts that handed her $9K+ annually. Newsflash, Pauline: Middle-income earners DO get →Medicare, →tax cuts, →childcare subsidies, →and free hospitals. The only thing they don’t get? →A private jet →and a billionaire sugar mummy to bankroll their lifestyle. Maybe instead of whining about "squandering," you should explain why you’re against policies that help the very people you claim to represent. Or is this just another One Nation con job? THIS IS WHAT SHE SAID: They WANT ME [Oh dear, you're hardly ever at work] to forego tax cuts to give it more to them so they can just squander the money. And the LOWER CLASS Australians, okay, the ones who are not on high wages, they have tax benefit cuts A and B, they have health care, they have prescriptions, they have rental assistance, they have plus, plus, plus. But the middle-income earner [She's NOT a "middle income earner"] doesn't get that. You know, even childcare, the billions that goes into childcare, where's the accountability for that? I have had a gutful. ______ We have had a GUTFUL of you pauline, lying to the base that got you a seat in Farrer, lying to the BATTLERS all while becoming a multi-millionaire by the taxpayer. #PaulineHanson against the poor, against the worker, against #Pensioners #Jobseeker

This woman is deranged. LOWER CLASS AISTRALIANS??? = LOW PAID = SQUANDER their money - WTF???? She uses the words "And the lower class Australians, okay, the ones who are not on high wages..." Oh dear, she's going to dig a fucking hole right there. These are "The battlers" she cultivates [Farms] for support. OR she is specifically targeting the #unemployed who actually don't benefit from the tax cuts and live on an income below the poverty line. Meanwhile, SHE got a $105,000 PAY RISE THIS financial year. Pauline Hanson wants you to believe middle-income earners are forgotten, while she pockets: → $349K+ a year, →enjoys free luxury flights, → Private car paid for →Exceptional superannuation → Huge expense account →and cries about tax cuts that handed her $9K+ annually. Newsflash, Pauline: Middle-income earners DO get →Medicare, →tax cuts, →childcare subsidies, →and free hospitals. The only thing they don’t get? →A private jet →and a billionaire sugar mummy to bankroll their lifestyle. Maybe instead of whining about "squandering," you should explain why you’re against policies that help the very people you claim to represent. Or is this just another One Nation con job? THIS IS WHAT SHE SAID: They WANT ME [Oh dear, you're hardly ever at work] to forego tax cuts to give it more to them so they can just squander the money. And the LOWER CLASS Australians, okay, the ones who are not on high wages, they have tax benefit cuts A and B, they have health care, they have prescriptions, they have rental assistance, they have plus, plus, plus. But the middle-income earner [She's NOT a "middle income earner"] doesn't get that. You know, even childcare, the billions that goes into childcare, where's the accountability for that? I have had a gutful. ______ We have had a GUTFUL of you pauline, lying to the base that got you a seat in Farrer, lying to the BATTLERS all while becoming a multi-millionaire by the taxpayer. #PaulineHanson against the poor, against the worker, against #Pensioners #Jobseeker

The Noisy Elephant

45,093 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Something’s happening in Texas and it’s not good for Texans. For 67 years, Prosper ISD was a small farming community school district. Now it’s one of the fastest growing districts in the state. The problem isn’t the growth, it’s where it’s coming from and who’s paying for it. While previous residents paid taxes and built up reserves, the district is now draining those reserves to cover tens of millions in annual operating deficits. At the same time, they lowered the tax rate. As new students keep arriving, the number of SPED and ESL aides has also exploded (I wonder why). When you pull up the public staff directories and search “aide,” the same pattern repeats across school after school: a massive percentage of those positions are filled by people with South Asian/Indian names. Taxpayers who built this district for decades are watching their reserves get burned through while the tax rate gets cut and the support staff looks nothing like the community that funded it. This is what replacement looks like and it’s being paid for by previous Texans. #texaschanged

Something’s happening in Texas and it’s not good for Texans. For 67 years, Prosper ISD was a small farming community school district. Now it’s one of the fastest growing districts in the state. The problem isn’t the growth, it’s where it’s coming from and who’s paying for it. While previous residents paid taxes and built up reserves, the district is now draining those reserves to cover tens of millions in annual operating deficits. At the same time, they lowered the tax rate. As new students keep arriving, the number of SPED and ESL aides has also exploded (I wonder why). When you pull up the public staff directories and search “aide,” the same pattern repeats across school after school: a massive percentage of those positions are filled by people with South Asian/Indian names. Taxpayers who built this district for decades are watching their reserves get burned through while the tax rate gets cut and the support staff looks nothing like the community that funded it. This is what replacement looks like and it’s being paid for by previous Texans. #texaschanged

Nick Plumb

23,664 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Trump’s UK mini me Nigel Farage received a £5 million ‘gift’ from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne in early 2024 just six months before being elected to Parliament as member for Clacton. A constituency in which the self proclaimed ‘man of the people’ has NEVER held a face to face surgery with ANY Clacton resident. It would seem his job as MP comes second to his 12 outside private jobs which often see him in Washington meeting with his American hard right handlers. He claims that the £5 million ‘gift’ did not need to be declared because he was not a politician at the time. This is bizarre to say the least, given that when he received this generous gift, he held a 53% majority stake as the private corporate owner of Reform UK. He was literally the OWNER of a political party. This is the same Nigel Farage who has openly promoted Harbourne’s teather stable coin and in May 2024 published a Reform document of intent in May that set out a ‘post-Brexit roadmap to make the United Kingdom the world’s premier hub for cryptocurrency and blockchain innovation. He also advocates for cutting capital gains tax on digital assets. In June of THIS YEAR he used private meeting at Bank of England to urge governor to drop plans for state-run cryptocurrency. This was a clear attempt to block a Bank of England cryptocurrency plan that could be costly for the same billionaire bankrolling his party. Farage is a Charlatan now attempting to use his influence as a sitting member of Parliament for the benefit of a man who gave him a ‘gift’ of £5 million, which he claims is none of anybody’s business. I beg to differ. In any other universe this is called ‘cash for access’ This is a man who is campaigning to be the next UK Prime Minister. Sounds like a familiar transatlantic pattern to me. 🎥 TikTok -

Trump’s UK mini me Nigel Farage received a £5 million ‘gift’ from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne in early 2024 just six months before being elected to Parliament as member for Clacton. A constituency in which the self proclaimed ‘man of the people’ has NEVER held a face to face surgery with ANY Clacton resident. It would seem his job as MP comes second to his 12 outside private jobs which often see him in Washington meeting with his American hard right handlers. He claims that the £5 million ‘gift’ did not need to be declared because he was not a politician at the time. This is bizarre to say the least, given that when he received this generous gift, he held a 53% majority stake as the private corporate owner of Reform UK. He was literally the OWNER of a political party. This is the same Nigel Farage who has openly promoted Harbourne’s teather stable coin and in May 2024 published a Reform document of intent in May that set out a ‘post-Brexit roadmap to make the United Kingdom the world’s premier hub for cryptocurrency and blockchain innovation. He also advocates for cutting capital gains tax on digital assets. In June of THIS YEAR he used private meeting at Bank of England to urge governor to drop plans for state-run cryptocurrency. This was a clear attempt to block a Bank of England cryptocurrency plan that could be costly for the same billionaire bankrolling his party. Farage is a Charlatan now attempting to use his influence as a sitting member of Parliament for the benefit of a man who gave him a ‘gift’ of £5 million, which he claims is none of anybody’s business. I beg to differ. In any other universe this is called ‘cash for access’ This is a man who is campaigning to be the next UK Prime Minister. Sounds like a familiar transatlantic pattern to me. 🎥 TikTok -

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

24,480 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

You’re right. I saw them. I took vacation days off from my day job and visited this government RV storage location in Florida. We begged for these RVs for the families we are trying to help. We told them we had a 103 yo WWII veteran who lost his home to #Helene and who needed shelter. Our collective tax dollars paid for these RVs but our efforts to secure even 1 of these “government RVs” for a WWII Veteran was fruitless. “He lives in a floodplain…that’s against regulations…sorry we can’t help you or him”. We learned a valuable lesson that day. We only have each other and can get things done more quickly and efficiently by working together, people helping people is how the good work gets done. We found a veteran rv donor and the WWII veteran who recently celebrated his 104th birthday now has shelter. EmergencyRV

You’re right. I saw them. I took vacation days off from my day job and visited this government RV storage location in Florida. We begged for these RVs for the families we are trying to help. We told them we had a 103 yo WWII veteran who lost his home to #Helene and who needed shelter. Our collective tax dollars paid for these RVs but our efforts to secure even 1 of these “government RVs” for a WWII Veteran was fruitless. “He lives in a floodplain…that’s against regulations…sorry we can’t help you or him”. We learned a valuable lesson that day. We only have each other and can get things done more quickly and efficiently by working together, people helping people is how the good work gets done. We found a veteran rv donor and the WWII veteran who recently celebrated his 104th birthday now has shelter. EmergencyRV

EmergencyRV

454,949 просмотров • 1 год назад

🇨🇦Jagmeet Singh is back Canada! But he changed his name to Naheed Nenshi?🤔 This guy has two Government Pensions working on his third. He is everything that is wrong with Canadian Politicians and the second coming of Jagmeet. Never vote NDP! Teachers get 10 weeks vacation and fun fact they have defined pension plan. Meaning if market crashed and they could not pay Alberta Government would meaning tax payers. Did you know the city of Calgary has a massive growing shortfall every year that’s funded by taxpayers? 36M in 2023 and growing. That’s right your tax dollars going to pay pensions that are underfunded. Who are these people? Tell me how we are responsible for them even if there is no money and everyone else is suffering? Unions they are all bloated, entitled, woke, inefficient, inflation causing and political.

🇨🇦Jagmeet Singh is back Canada! But he changed his name to Naheed Nenshi?🤔 This guy has two Government Pensions working on his third. He is everything that is wrong with Canadian Politicians and the second coming of Jagmeet. Never vote NDP! Teachers get 10 weeks vacation and fun fact they have defined pension plan. Meaning if market crashed and they could not pay Alberta Government would meaning tax payers. Did you know the city of Calgary has a massive growing shortfall every year that’s funded by taxpayers? 36M in 2023 and growing. That’s right your tax dollars going to pay pensions that are underfunded. Who are these people? Tell me how we are responsible for them even if there is no money and everyone else is suffering? Unions they are all bloated, entitled, woke, inefficient, inflation causing and political.

THE OFFICIAL RECORD

53,940 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Hon'ble Justice M. Nagaprasanna is a judge who never minces words when public interest is at stake. Blunt, fearless, and unapologetic his courtroom leaves no space for political vendetta or doublespeak. Read/Listen to what he said 👇 "If you are not extending Jan Aushadhi Kendras of 120 sq ft, the state government is not acting in public interest. The state is not interested in the welfare of the public. You are only dislodging somebody who is doing well, sir, for the public, because it is Pradhan Mantri's part of the Government of India. Now that medicines are available there, you are having a headache. Politics even there. If Jan Aushadhi is a problem, the people will ask. Nobody asked you to give free. Who asked you, sir? Who asked for free bus? Was there a demand? It wasn't there. Today other government departments have not paid the salary. Should they not survive? Because all money has gone into this (free schemes)." Orders 👇 "We will not allow one wing of the government to tinker with medicines for the poor, whether free or at nominal price. The order (congress order to shut down Jan Aushadi kendra) is quashed. Public welfare cannot be sabotaged by vendetta." -Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Dharwad Bench, Karnataka High Court When a High Court Judge himself calls it “vendetta”, you know how low Congress has sunk. PM schemes serve poor. Congress schemes serve politics. Congress is anti poor. Anti welfare. Pure vendetta politics.

Hon'ble Justice M. Nagaprasanna is a judge who never minces words when public interest is at stake. Blunt, fearless, and unapologetic his courtroom leaves no space for political vendetta or doublespeak. Read/Listen to what he said 👇 "If you are not extending Jan Aushadhi Kendras of 120 sq ft, the state government is not acting in public interest. The state is not interested in the welfare of the public. You are only dislodging somebody who is doing well, sir, for the public, because it is Pradhan Mantri's part of the Government of India. Now that medicines are available there, you are having a headache. Politics even there. If Jan Aushadhi is a problem, the people will ask. Nobody asked you to give free. Who asked you, sir? Who asked for free bus? Was there a demand? It wasn't there. Today other government departments have not paid the salary. Should they not survive? Because all money has gone into this (free schemes)." Orders 👇 "We will not allow one wing of the government to tinker with medicines for the poor, whether free or at nominal price. The order (congress order to shut down Jan Aushadi kendra) is quashed. Public welfare cannot be sabotaged by vendetta." -Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Dharwad Bench, Karnataka High Court When a High Court Judge himself calls it “vendetta”, you know how low Congress has sunk. PM schemes serve poor. Congress schemes serve politics. Congress is anti poor. Anti welfare. Pure vendetta politics.

Kiran Aradhya

40,942 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Selling your home in San Diego could soon cost you $60,000. 💲💸💰 Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Actually — wait. We need $60,000 before you go. Not property tax. Not capital gains. A brand new tax just for selling. Here’s how a county drowning in money still ran out of it: Property values are already doing their dirty work for them — automatically dumping an extra $340 million into county coffers every single year without lifting a finger. The budget still exploded from $6.2 billion to $8.6 billion — a 40% jump in just five years. And what did they do with all that money? Reckless COVID hiring spree. 2,500 new employees. 10 brand-new departments nobody can explain. $300 million a year in new payroll. Then they raided $300 million from emergency reserves meant for earthquakes, wildfires, and disasters. First thing they spent it on? $45 million in employee bonuses. Not roads. Not fire stations. Not fixing the sewage pouring in from Tijuana. Bonuses for themselves. You’re welcome. They blew through all of it — and still came up short. So they came for your home sale instead. Right now the transfer tax on a $1 million home is $1,100. They wanted to jack it to $60,000+. That’s a 5,500% increase. Here’s how they tried to sneak it through: December 18, 2025 — right before Christmas — two supervisors quietly posted a lobbyist RFQ. Due date? December 21st. Three business days over the holidays. The job: hire someone to go to Sacramento, rewrite state law, and quietly ram through a massive home-sale exit tax PLUS a brand-new payroll tax straight out of your paycheck. All while you were Christmas shopping. Supervisor Jim Desmond caught it, went public, and they yanked it. His warning: “They pulled it because they got caught… not because they changed their mind. They’ll be back.” Turns out he was right — the Board voted 3-2 in February against even formally opposing the tax. They didn’t even want it on record that they disagreed with it. They’re not done. LA already showed us exactly where this goes. Their “mansion tax” was promised to raise up to $1.1 billion a year. It’s raised $662 million total in two years — less than half of what was promised. High-value property sales dropped 50%. Multifamily building permits got cut by more than half. Researchers found that for every dollar the tax raised, the region could lose $1.38 in future property tax revenue. That’s what’s coming for San Diego. And the 3-2 vote already told you everything you need to know about whether they care. This isn’t a revenue problem. This is a government addicted to your money — and they will never stop until you make them. Your home is most families’ entire life savings and retirement plan. Don’t let them turn selling it into a six-figure government shakedown. The next battleground is November 2026. Governor’s race. Ballot measures. If you know a homeowner who votes Democrat, send them this. Because $60,000 is a hell of a price to pay to keep voting the same way.

Jake

304,636 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

EPSTEIN: MANDELSON’S ACCOUNTANT. Mandelson is worth around £100 Million and you want to know how? Mandy is a “Fixer” he introduces someone who needs something done to someone who can get it done. Then charges a fee which then disappears into the Bermudan Triangle of Offshore Accounts and Blind Trusts that Epstein set up for him. Petey pays very little UK TAX. That’s For The Little People. Starmer knows this. Badenoch knows. Mcsweeney knows. Rayner knows. THE ARTIST FORMALLY KNOWN AS PRINCE (ANDREW) REALLY KNOWS IT. As Thats Where His China Fixer Sits Gaining %%% And why won’t the King give up Andrew to the Police? Same reason why Starmer surrounds himself with Paedophiles, Sex Beasts and Assorted Monsters: THEY ALL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EPSTEIN SYSTEM. 1/ Befriend Powerful Rich Elites 2/ Film them in bed with the wrong people, doing all the wrong things their sick imaginations conjure up. 3/ Show them the Films. 4/ Draw them into a Tax Efficient Trust that saves them even more. 5/ Pockets his corner of the savings. When Jeff was “removed” from the Earth he was worth upwards of $480 Million. After he died over a $ Billion transactions were monitored as likely sex trafficker payments. In his name. In one year. AFTER HE DIED. THE EPSTEIN SYSTEM: Still in Operation. Still Building Fortunes for Perverts, Rapists and Child Sex Abusers. TIME THE SYSTEM HAD THE SAME ENDING AS JEFF. Starmer went to meet PALENTIR off the books secretly to discuss his “advantage” from both Mandelson and the Company. Mandy introduced someone - PALENTIR who wanted something doing (£240M Contract) to someone who could get it done: Signed off without a competitive tender process.

Sensitive content

EPSTEIN: MANDELSON’S ACCOUNTANT. Mandelson is worth around £100 Million and you want to know how? Mandy is a “Fixer” he introduces someone who needs something done to someone who can get it done. Then charges a fee which then disappears into the Bermudan Triangle of Offshore Accounts and Blind Trusts that Epstein set up for him. Petey pays very little UK TAX. That’s For The Little People. Starmer knows this. Badenoch knows. Mcsweeney knows. Rayner knows. THE ARTIST FORMALLY KNOWN AS PRINCE (ANDREW) REALLY KNOWS IT. As Thats Where His China Fixer Sits Gaining %%% And why won’t the King give up Andrew to the Police? Same reason why Starmer surrounds himself with Paedophiles, Sex Beasts and Assorted Monsters: THEY ALL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EPSTEIN SYSTEM. 1/ Befriend Powerful Rich Elites 2/ Film them in bed with the wrong people, doing all the wrong things their sick imaginations conjure up. 3/ Show them the Films. 4/ Draw them into a Tax Efficient Trust that saves them even more. 5/ Pockets his corner of the savings. When Jeff was “removed” from the Earth he was worth upwards of $480 Million. After he died over a $ Billion transactions were monitored as likely sex trafficker payments. In his name. In one year. AFTER HE DIED. THE EPSTEIN SYSTEM: Still in Operation. Still Building Fortunes for Perverts, Rapists and Child Sex Abusers. TIME THE SYSTEM HAD THE SAME ENDING AS JEFF. Starmer went to meet PALENTIR off the books secretly to discuss his “advantage” from both Mandelson and the Company. Mandy introduced someone - PALENTIR who wanted something doing (£240M Contract) to someone who could get it done: Signed off without a competitive tender process.

Pete Sanford

192,858 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

We need to call a thing what it is. Black tax dollars are fueling an economy that too often leaves Black people out. In an all-Black neighborhood, not one Black face on the crew fixing the roads we paid for. That’s not a coincidence—it’s a system. This is taxation without representation. It’s time for Black elected officials to hold the line: no more contracts without Black representation. Until there’s equity in who gets the work and who benefits from our tax dollars, we must use every bit of our power to shift resources toward our people. In a state that’s 34% Black, a parish that’s 48% Black, and a city that’s 56% Black, it is unacceptable for public dollars to keep flowing to companies that shut Black workers out. We can’t force them to hire us—but our leaders don’t have to keep voting to fund them either. And every time somebody brings up crime in our communities, I’m going to bring up jobs. We fund the building of white wealth every day while being told to “fix our own problems.” That’s not just wrong—it’s corporate welfare. You take money from one community, invest it in another, and then blame the first for the outcomes. If you want to fix crime, start by funding our businesses, hiring our people, and treating our communities like they are equal in investment. Stop asking us to fix the symptoms while you keep feeding the disease.

We need to call a thing what it is. Black tax dollars are fueling an economy that too often leaves Black people out. In an all-Black neighborhood, not one Black face on the crew fixing the roads we paid for. That’s not a coincidence—it’s a system. This is taxation without representation. It’s time for Black elected officials to hold the line: no more contracts without Black representation. Until there’s equity in who gets the work and who benefits from our tax dollars, we must use every bit of our power to shift resources toward our people. In a state that’s 34% Black, a parish that’s 48% Black, and a city that’s 56% Black, it is unacceptable for public dollars to keep flowing to companies that shut Black workers out. We can’t force them to hire us—but our leaders don’t have to keep voting to fund them either. And every time somebody brings up crime in our communities, I’m going to bring up jobs. We fund the building of white wealth every day while being told to “fix our own problems.” That’s not just wrong—it’s corporate welfare. You take money from one community, invest it in another, and then blame the first for the outcomes. If you want to fix crime, start by funding our businesses, hiring our people, and treating our communities like they are equal in investment. Stop asking us to fix the symptoms while you keep feeding the disease.

Gary Chambers

52,555 просмотров • 1 год назад