ๆญฃๅœจๅŠ ่ฝฝ่ง†้ข‘...

่ง†้ข‘ๅŠ ่ฝฝๅคฑ่ดฅ

่ฟ”ๅ›ž้ฆ–้กต

๐‚๐ฅ๐š๐ซ๐ข๐Ÿ๐ข๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง: ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐๐ข๐ ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐š ๐“๐š๐ฑ ๐€๐œ๐ญ 2025 ๐ก๐š๐ฌ ๐‚๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐œ๐ž๐ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ƒ๐จ๐ž๐ฌ ๐๐Ž๐“ ๐ˆ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ž ๐š 25% ๐“๐š๐ฑ ๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ง๐  ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐š๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ซ ๐…๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ฌ We are aware of a recent video claiming that the new tax laws will commence in 2027 and alleging the imposition of a 25% tax on funds for building...

taiwoyedele's profile picture

Taiwo Oyedele

97,703 subscribers

121,658 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 5 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰ โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

ๆ–ฐ้—ปๆ”ฟๆฒป่ดข็ป
LIVE

Anya Rossiโ€ข Live Now

Private livecam show

0 ๆก่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๆš‚ๆ— ่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๅŽŸๅง‹ๅธ–ๅญ็š„่ฏ„่ฎบๅฐ†ๆ˜พ็คบๅœจ่ฟ™้‡Œ

็›ธๅ…ณ่ง†้ข‘

A concern many voters have about voting yes on initiative i2109 is the misleading description put on the ballot measure that gives voters the impression that if the capital gains tax is repealed it would reduce funding to Washington's education system and early childcare programs. This wording was written by a partisan office that opposes the initiative and has an obvious conflict of interest in providing Washingtonians with the truth. Chris Corry is the ranking member of the House Appropriations committee and has deep knowledge of Washington's budget. In this video he explains why Washington already has adequate funding for its education system and that the highly volatile revenue from the capital gains tax was unnecessary to fund programs. The truth is that proponents of the capital gains tax had spent years trying to find a way to introduce an income tax into Washington. By creating a capital gains tax and cynically telling Washington voters that "if you don't support it, our kids education will be harmed" they managed to open the door to a broad-based income tax. Within a year of creating the capital gains tax, which they marketed as only applying to the rich, they introduced legislation to lower the threshold at which it applies dramatically so the tax would apply to the vast majority of people in Washington who own stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies or other assets. Real-estate and retirement funds are exempt for now, but given Olympia's proclivity for increasing and expanding taxes, this will not last long. Listen to Representative Corry's explanation for why the wording on the ballot measure is so misleading and vote Yes on i2109 to repeal Washington's backdoor income tax. Vote yes, pay less.
2:16

A concern many voters have about voting yes on initiative i2109 is the misleading description put on the ballot measure that gives voters the impression that if the capital gains tax is repealed it would reduce funding to Washington's education system and early childcare programs. This wording was written by a partisan office that opposes the initiative and has an obvious conflict of interest in providing Washingtonians with the truth. Chris Corry is the ranking member of the House Appropriations committee and has deep knowledge of Washington's budget. In this video he explains why Washington already has adequate funding for its education system and that the highly volatile revenue from the capital gains tax was unnecessary to fund programs. The truth is that proponents of the capital gains tax had spent years trying to find a way to introduce an income tax into Washington. By creating a capital gains tax and cynically telling Washington voters that "if you don't support it, our kids education will be harmed" they managed to open the door to a broad-based income tax. Within a year of creating the capital gains tax, which they marketed as only applying to the rich, they introduced legislation to lower the threshold at which it applies dramatically so the tax would apply to the vast majority of people in Washington who own stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies or other assets. Real-estate and retirement funds are exempt for now, but given Olympia's proclivity for increasing and expanding taxes, this will not last long. Listen to Representative Corry's explanation for why the wording on the ballot measure is so misleading and vote Yes on i2109 to repeal Washington's backdoor income tax. Vote yes, pay less.

VijayInWA

13,966 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? โ€œPeople 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 โ€” because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property โ€” 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) โ€” 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: โ€˜what about property tax?โ€™ 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, schoolsโ€ฆ 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: itโ€™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 โ€” 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) โ€” 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) โ€” 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: โ€˜Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.โ€™ 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.โ€ david friedberg The All-In Podcast
2:35

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? โ€œPeople 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 โ€” because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property โ€” 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) โ€” 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: โ€˜what about property tax?โ€™ 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, schoolsโ€ฆ 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: itโ€™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 โ€” 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) โ€” 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) โ€” 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: โ€˜Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.โ€™ 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.โ€ david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides ๎จ€

258,567 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 6 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

If the Albanese government was serious about exploitation by foreign investors in Australias housing market, they would ensure that buyers have to provide their tax file number to their conveyance lawyer upon purchasing a property. The idea that the ATO can thoroughly match stamp duty payments with a buyers citizenship papers is unrealistic as this clip confirms. It's a pity the ATO didn't crack down on offshore profit shifting with the same vigour it cracked down on small businesses. As the attached article highlights โ€ข $35 billion in losses have been claimed by foreign property investors which begs the question as to how much in income hasn't been declared. People First will ban non-citizens from buying residential property (along with Agriculture and Infrastructure). For existing properties owned by foreigners we will request that Real Estate agents withhold 50% of rental payments made to landlords who fail to provide a tax file number to stop offshore profit shifting. We will also charge a minimum 30% on profits from rental properties. Learn more at โ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ข "The Australian Taxation Office released its 2024 financial year data in June, and it shows more than 34,000 nonresidents claimed net rent losses worth a combined $473m. It's almost four times the number of Australians who signed up as rentvestors in the same year. The loss entitles the owner to a reduction in the tax on their rental income, but for super wealthy internationals getting rent from multiple properties or with other income it opens the door to a negative gearing claim. Over the past decade, the total for rental losses claimed in tax returns by non-residents was $35bn. Across the same timeline the tax data shows $68.6bn in rent interest deductions were also claimed, as well as $10.5bn in rent capital works deductions and even $65bn in "other" rental deductions.
1:52

If the Albanese government was serious about exploitation by foreign investors in Australias housing market, they would ensure that buyers have to provide their tax file number to their conveyance lawyer upon purchasing a property. The idea that the ATO can thoroughly match stamp duty payments with a buyers citizenship papers is unrealistic as this clip confirms. It's a pity the ATO didn't crack down on offshore profit shifting with the same vigour it cracked down on small businesses. As the attached article highlights โ€ข $35 billion in losses have been claimed by foreign property investors which begs the question as to how much in income hasn't been declared. People First will ban non-citizens from buying residential property (along with Agriculture and Infrastructure). For existing properties owned by foreigners we will request that Real Estate agents withhold 50% of rental payments made to landlords who fail to provide a tax file number to stop offshore profit shifting. We will also charge a minimum 30% on profits from rental properties. Learn more at โ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ข "The Australian Taxation Office released its 2024 financial year data in June, and it shows more than 34,000 nonresidents claimed net rent losses worth a combined $473m. It's almost four times the number of Australians who signed up as rentvestors in the same year. The loss entitles the owner to a reduction in the tax on their rental income, but for super wealthy internationals getting rent from multiple properties or with other income it opens the door to a negative gearing claim. Over the past decade, the total for rental losses claimed in tax returns by non-residents was $35bn. Across the same timeline the tax data shows $68.6bn in rent interest deductions were also claimed, as well as $10.5bn in rent capital works deductions and even $65bn in "other" rental deductions.

Gerard Rennick

18,078 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 17 ๅคฉๅ‰

Yesterday I was opportune to be part of a Town Hall event organised by Channels Television anchored by SeunOkin Channels tv to discuss the Tax Reform Bills currently before the national assembly. The bills have seen significant opposition coming from some northern leaders and the NGF, especially on the issue of VAT revenue sharing among the states with many calling for the bills to be withdrawn by the President on account of this singular issue. Personally, I feel that part of the opposition from the bills stems from ignorance of the actual provisions contained in them or misconception of some aspects of the bill. However, when we look at the amount of VAT revenue that is triggering this whole haggling, you'll realise how precarious our revenue situation is. A dispassionate look at the data is essential to guide our positions on the necessity of these tax reforms. By the end of 2024, we may hit a record VAT collection of N6 trillion but that's just around $3.5 billion. In many states, their share of VAT revenue from FAAC in a year is bigger than their entire IGR! How on earth do you develop with such a revenue profile? This shows clearly that we need to reorganise and re-engineer our finances for optimum performance. This is what these bills seek to do. Although, increasing revenue collection is actually one of the intentions of these reforms but it is not the MAJOR reason. The major aim is to remove all the cogs and bottlenecks that affect growth and profitability of businesses in Nigeria by reducing their tax burden and exempting the small businesses from paying income tax. The vast majority of Nigerians who are poor would also be exempt from paying income tax. We're talking about 90% of Nigerians here! In other climes, any piece of legislation that brings overall tax relief to low income earners is always a popular bill with massive support. It is therefore bizarre that some persons are up in arms in Nigeria to oppose this kind of landmark legislation and they claim they're fighting for the masses. Data and logic should guide our positions and not sentiments or mischievous ignorance. Any reservations held by any individual or group about any section of the bills should be presented to the NASS during the public hearings and not calling for the withdrawal of the bills. Let's be serious in this country please.
4:58

Yesterday I was opportune to be part of a Town Hall event organised by Channels Television anchored by SeunOkin Channels tv to discuss the Tax Reform Bills currently before the national assembly. The bills have seen significant opposition coming from some northern leaders and the NGF, especially on the issue of VAT revenue sharing among the states with many calling for the bills to be withdrawn by the President on account of this singular issue. Personally, I feel that part of the opposition from the bills stems from ignorance of the actual provisions contained in them or misconception of some aspects of the bill. However, when we look at the amount of VAT revenue that is triggering this whole haggling, you'll realise how precarious our revenue situation is. A dispassionate look at the data is essential to guide our positions on the necessity of these tax reforms. By the end of 2024, we may hit a record VAT collection of N6 trillion but that's just around $3.5 billion. In many states, their share of VAT revenue from FAAC in a year is bigger than their entire IGR! How on earth do you develop with such a revenue profile? This shows clearly that we need to reorganise and re-engineer our finances for optimum performance. This is what these bills seek to do. Although, increasing revenue collection is actually one of the intentions of these reforms but it is not the MAJOR reason. The major aim is to remove all the cogs and bottlenecks that affect growth and profitability of businesses in Nigeria by reducing their tax burden and exempting the small businesses from paying income tax. The vast majority of Nigerians who are poor would also be exempt from paying income tax. We're talking about 90% of Nigerians here! In other climes, any piece of legislation that brings overall tax relief to low income earners is always a popular bill with massive support. It is therefore bizarre that some persons are up in arms in Nigeria to oppose this kind of landmark legislation and they claim they're fighting for the masses. Data and logic should guide our positions and not sentiments or mischievous ignorance. Any reservations held by any individual or group about any section of the bills should be presented to the NASS during the public hearings and not calling for the withdrawal of the bills. Let's be serious in this country please.

Michael Chibuzoยฎ

16,022 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Just saw this on .FOX Business โ€œEXIT TAXโ€ ๐Ÿ˜ณplastered over a mountain of cash. The caption says it all: โ€œTheyโ€™re gonna tax you with a knife in your back when you leave, too.โ€ ๐Ÿ˜ฑ And itโ€™s not just talk. Across the country, at least 10 states are now exploring or have already pushed wealth taxes and โ€œexit taxesโ€ to punish residents who dare to flee their high-tax, high-spending disasters for lower-tax states like Florida, Texas, or Tennessee. Leading the pack: 1. California โ€” โ€œBillionaire Tax Actโ€ (5% one-time hit on net worth over $1 billion) 2. New York Wealth and high-income tax proposals, plus aggressive residency audits on departing residents. 3. Washington Recently passed 9.9% tax on incomes over $1M; earlier capital gains tax. 4. Michigan Ballot proposal for 5%+ tax on high earners (over $500K); constitutional amendment efforts. 5.Massachusetts Millionaire surtax already in place; additional wealth/exit ideas under discussion. 6. Connecticut Wealth tax proposals and high-income surcharges. 7. Illinois โ€” Debating 3% tax on income over $1M. 8. New Jersey โ€” Has existing withholding rules on real estate sales for former residents (often called an exit mechanism). 9. Maryland โ€” High-income and capital gains adjustments; history of targeting departing wealthy residents. 10. Hawaii or others in the broader group โ€” Part of earlier coordinated wealth tax pushes (some reports fold in states like these for ongoing discussions). โœ… โ€ฆplus others quietly lining up. Some proposals include โ€œlook-backโ€ rules so they can keep taxing your worldwide assets even after you move out. This isnโ€™t about โ€œfairness.โ€ Itโ€™s about governments that refuse to cut wasteful spending, so instead they try to trap the golden geese who actually pay the bills.
0:43

๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Just saw this on .FOX Business โ€œEXIT TAXโ€ ๐Ÿ˜ณplastered over a mountain of cash. The caption says it all: โ€œTheyโ€™re gonna tax you with a knife in your back when you leave, too.โ€ ๐Ÿ˜ฑ And itโ€™s not just talk. Across the country, at least 10 states are now exploring or have already pushed wealth taxes and โ€œexit taxesโ€ to punish residents who dare to flee their high-tax, high-spending disasters for lower-tax states like Florida, Texas, or Tennessee. Leading the pack: 1. California โ€” โ€œBillionaire Tax Actโ€ (5% one-time hit on net worth over $1 billion) 2. New York Wealth and high-income tax proposals, plus aggressive residency audits on departing residents. 3. Washington Recently passed 9.9% tax on incomes over $1M; earlier capital gains tax. 4. Michigan Ballot proposal for 5%+ tax on high earners (over $500K); constitutional amendment efforts. 5.Massachusetts Millionaire surtax already in place; additional wealth/exit ideas under discussion. 6. Connecticut Wealth tax proposals and high-income surcharges. 7. Illinois โ€” Debating 3% tax on income over $1M. 8. New Jersey โ€” Has existing withholding rules on real estate sales for former residents (often called an exit mechanism). 9. Maryland โ€” High-income and capital gains adjustments; history of targeting departing wealthy residents. 10. Hawaii or others in the broader group โ€” Part of earlier coordinated wealth tax pushes (some reports fold in states like these for ongoing discussions). โœ… โ€ฆplus others quietly lining up. Some proposals include โ€œlook-backโ€ rules so they can keep taxing your worldwide assets even after you move out. This isnโ€™t about โ€œfairness.โ€ Itโ€™s about governments that refuse to cut wasteful spending, so instead they try to trap the golden geese who actually pay the bills.

๐Ÿฆ… Eagle Wings ๐Ÿฆ…

20,383 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 3 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

๐ŸšจBREAKING: Democrat-controlled Senate passes multi-billion-dollar Millionairesโ€™ Tax With a vote of 27-22, the Washington State Senate on Monday passed Senate Bill 6346, a proposal to impose a 9.9% tax on individuals earning more than $1 million annually. Three Democrat lawmakersโ€”Sens. Adrien Cortes (D-Battle Ground), Deb Krishnadasen (D-Gig Harbor) and Drew Hansen (D-Bainbridge Island) โ€” joined all Republicans in voting against the measure. Supporters cast the bill as a vital step toward fixing what they call a regressive tax system and funding essential services like education and health care, while critics warned it would hammer small businesses, drive away jobs, and set the stage for broader income taxes despite votersโ€™ repeated rejections. SB 6346โ€”also known as the โ€œMillionairesโ€™ Taxโ€โ€” introduced by Senate Majority Leader Jaime Pedersen (D-Capitol Hill), would start with federal adjusted gross income and make adjustments to arrive at โ€œWashington taxable income.โ€ It excludes long-term capital gains unless already subject to the stateโ€™s capital gains tax, adds back certain state and local taxes deducted federally, and provides a $1 million standard deduction per householdโ€”adjusted for inflation from 2030โ€”and a $50,000 charitable deduction. Non-residents of Washington state pay only on Washington-sourced income, apportioned based on activity within the state. The Millionairesโ€™ Tax would take effect January 1, 2028, with first returns due in 2029. It exempts real estate sales, qualified family-owned small businesses, and retirement income from public pensions. Estimated to affect about 30,000 taxpayersโ€”roughly 0.5% of householdsโ€”it is expected to generate approximately $3.7 billion annually, with 5% ($175 million) dedicated to county public defense and the remainder to the general fund for education, health care, and other services. However, these monies are not earmarked for education nor health care and can be used as the legislature sees fit when it is allocated to the stateโ€™s general fund. The bill starts with federal adjusted gross income, currently excludes all long-term capital gains and losses initially, then adds back only net long-term capital gains subject to Washingtonโ€™s capital gains tax (plus the standard and charitable deductions that reduced the taxable amount). Thus, real estate sales that qualify for exemption under the capital gains rulesโ€”such as qualified family-owned small businesses or residential propertyโ€”remain untaxed, avoiding any undoing of exemptions. During the hearing on Feb. 6, it was revealed that although SB-6346 targets only individuals with at least $1 million in annual income, no current law can permanently bind future legislatures should a future legislature expand the tax to other income brackets. The bill now heads to the House for vote. ๐ŸŽฌSource: TVW
2:42

๐ŸšจBREAKING: Democrat-controlled Senate passes multi-billion-dollar Millionairesโ€™ Tax With a vote of 27-22, the Washington State Senate on Monday passed Senate Bill 6346, a proposal to impose a 9.9% tax on individuals earning more than $1 million annually. Three Democrat lawmakersโ€”Sens. Adrien Cortes (D-Battle Ground), Deb Krishnadasen (D-Gig Harbor) and Drew Hansen (D-Bainbridge Island) โ€” joined all Republicans in voting against the measure. Supporters cast the bill as a vital step toward fixing what they call a regressive tax system and funding essential services like education and health care, while critics warned it would hammer small businesses, drive away jobs, and set the stage for broader income taxes despite votersโ€™ repeated rejections. SB 6346โ€”also known as the โ€œMillionairesโ€™ Taxโ€โ€” introduced by Senate Majority Leader Jaime Pedersen (D-Capitol Hill), would start with federal adjusted gross income and make adjustments to arrive at โ€œWashington taxable income.โ€ It excludes long-term capital gains unless already subject to the stateโ€™s capital gains tax, adds back certain state and local taxes deducted federally, and provides a $1 million standard deduction per householdโ€”adjusted for inflation from 2030โ€”and a $50,000 charitable deduction. Non-residents of Washington state pay only on Washington-sourced income, apportioned based on activity within the state. The Millionairesโ€™ Tax would take effect January 1, 2028, with first returns due in 2029. It exempts real estate sales, qualified family-owned small businesses, and retirement income from public pensions. Estimated to affect about 30,000 taxpayersโ€”roughly 0.5% of householdsโ€”it is expected to generate approximately $3.7 billion annually, with 5% ($175 million) dedicated to county public defense and the remainder to the general fund for education, health care, and other services. However, these monies are not earmarked for education nor health care and can be used as the legislature sees fit when it is allocated to the stateโ€™s general fund. The bill starts with federal adjusted gross income, currently excludes all long-term capital gains and losses initially, then adds back only net long-term capital gains subject to Washingtonโ€™s capital gains tax (plus the standard and charitable deductions that reduced the taxable amount). Thus, real estate sales that qualify for exemption under the capital gains rulesโ€”such as qualified family-owned small businesses or residential propertyโ€”remain untaxed, avoiding any undoing of exemptions. During the hearing on Feb. 6, it was revealed that although SB-6346 targets only individuals with at least $1 million in annual income, no current law can permanently bind future legislatures should a future legislature expand the tax to other income brackets. The bill now heads to the House for vote. ๐ŸŽฌSource: TVW

Lynnwood Times

52,440 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 5 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

How to fix Australia's budget in 30 minutes. I played around with new game that allows you to take the role of Australia's Treasurer. My philosophy: Shift the tax burden off income, work and production and onto unproductive speculation and rents, specifically in land and housing. Channel capital into factories, industry and manufacturing. Make Australia a productive superpower again. Key moves: - Income tax cuts for every bracket, weighted toward low and middle earners. - LNG export levy, 2% federal mineral resource levy, PRRT effective rate up to 45%. Qatar exports the same gas as us and pulls in $40-50 bn a year. Fix this to pay for income tax cuts. - Broad-based land value tax (0.25%) with the family home completely carved out. Kills idle land banking. - Negative gearing eliminated. Dead money. I want capital building factories, not flipping houses. - Tobacco and alcohol excise slashed. Current rates hand the market to Middle Eastern organised crime gangs and triggered the firebombing epidemic in Sydney and Melbourne. - Defence to 2.5% of GDP. Infrastructure to $25 bn. High-speed rail down the east coast, metros in every capital city. Nobody should need a car to get around any of the 5 major cities. - NDIS nationalised. Save $20 bn without cutting a single dollar from genuinely disabled Australians by ripping out the legions of shonky providers running mafia operations on taxpayer money. - Public service trimmed from 180,000 to 150,000. - Immigration and Home Affairs lifted to $8 bn โ€” harden the border, deport illegal residents. No cuts to pension, welfare, health, education or aged care. Politically untouchable. Result: Budget surplus, lower debt interest payments, tax cuts for every Australian, and capital flowing into productive enterprise instead of unproductive speculation. Beautiful vision. Make Australia a manufacturing and infrastructure superpower.
34:16

How to fix Australia's budget in 30 minutes. I played around with new game that allows you to take the role of Australia's Treasurer. My philosophy: Shift the tax burden off income, work and production and onto unproductive speculation and rents, specifically in land and housing. Channel capital into factories, industry and manufacturing. Make Australia a productive superpower again. Key moves: - Income tax cuts for every bracket, weighted toward low and middle earners. - LNG export levy, 2% federal mineral resource levy, PRRT effective rate up to 45%. Qatar exports the same gas as us and pulls in $40-50 bn a year. Fix this to pay for income tax cuts. - Broad-based land value tax (0.25%) with the family home completely carved out. Kills idle land banking. - Negative gearing eliminated. Dead money. I want capital building factories, not flipping houses. - Tobacco and alcohol excise slashed. Current rates hand the market to Middle Eastern organised crime gangs and triggered the firebombing epidemic in Sydney and Melbourne. - Defence to 2.5% of GDP. Infrastructure to $25 bn. High-speed rail down the east coast, metros in every capital city. Nobody should need a car to get around any of the 5 major cities. - NDIS nationalised. Save $20 bn without cutting a single dollar from genuinely disabled Australians by ripping out the legions of shonky providers running mafia operations on taxpayer money. - Public service trimmed from 180,000 to 150,000. - Immigration and Home Affairs lifted to $8 bn โ€” harden the border, deport illegal residents. No cuts to pension, welfare, health, education or aged care. Politically untouchable. Result: Budget surplus, lower debt interest payments, tax cuts for every Australian, and capital flowing into productive enterprise instead of unproductive speculation. Beautiful vision. Make Australia a manufacturing and infrastructure superpower.

Drew Pavlou ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡น๐Ÿ‡ผ

46,646 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 2 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

The taxation regime of gas and oil exploration in this country is not understood which has led to an enormous amount of misinformation. Here are the facts: 1. Oil and gas companies pay 30 cents tax on their profits just like every other company in Australia. That means that Australians already have 30% ownership. 2. Oil and gas companies pay a super profit tax on their profits known as the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. The PRRT has collected very little revenue to date for two reasons a) there has been an enormous amount of capital invested in getting these projects up resulting in large depreciation offsets and b) the gas was foolishly sold forward at very cheap prices when the projects were given the go ahead. A lot of these contracts will roll off over the next decade resulting in larger profits and a larger tax for taxpayers. 3. 70-80% of gas and oil exploration in Australia is unsuccessful. Offshore gas exploration is not a multi million dollar business- itโ€™s a multi billion dollar business. The idea that taxpayers should fund 30% of offshore oil and gas exploration is absurd. The last person to come up with that idea was Gough Whitlam. Needless to say no banks would lend against such a proposition. has always had a policy to abolish the PRRT and replace it with a 5-10% royalty on Sales. Combined with the 30% company tax that will guarantee that Australians share in over 40% of the profits of any offshore oil and gas project. Thatโ€™s an excellent return given taxpayers incur no risk. Iโ€™ve done up a table in comments showing the share Australians will receive based on operating profit margin before tax. David Pocock, the Greens and One Nation are all wrong on this. The formers 25% export tax will wipe out most of the profits made eliminating the incentive to further explore for gas. One Nation offering to fund 30% of exploration costs for mostly foreign owned companies will expose taxpayers to billions of dollars in subsidies with no guarantee of return. Australia desperately needs sensible economic reform. Unfortunately none of the parties in Canberra have a clue how to make this happen.
3:57

The taxation regime of gas and oil exploration in this country is not understood which has led to an enormous amount of misinformation. Here are the facts: 1. Oil and gas companies pay 30 cents tax on their profits just like every other company in Australia. That means that Australians already have 30% ownership. 2. Oil and gas companies pay a super profit tax on their profits known as the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. The PRRT has collected very little revenue to date for two reasons a) there has been an enormous amount of capital invested in getting these projects up resulting in large depreciation offsets and b) the gas was foolishly sold forward at very cheap prices when the projects were given the go ahead. A lot of these contracts will roll off over the next decade resulting in larger profits and a larger tax for taxpayers. 3. 70-80% of gas and oil exploration in Australia is unsuccessful. Offshore gas exploration is not a multi million dollar business- itโ€™s a multi billion dollar business. The idea that taxpayers should fund 30% of offshore oil and gas exploration is absurd. The last person to come up with that idea was Gough Whitlam. Needless to say no banks would lend against such a proposition. has always had a policy to abolish the PRRT and replace it with a 5-10% royalty on Sales. Combined with the 30% company tax that will guarantee that Australians share in over 40% of the profits of any offshore oil and gas project. Thatโ€™s an excellent return given taxpayers incur no risk. Iโ€™ve done up a table in comments showing the share Australians will receive based on operating profit margin before tax. David Pocock, the Greens and One Nation are all wrong on this. The formers 25% export tax will wipe out most of the profits made eliminating the incentive to further explore for gas. One Nation offering to fund 30% of exploration costs for mostly foreign owned companies will expose taxpayers to billions of dollars in subsidies with no guarantee of return. Australia desperately needs sensible economic reform. Unfortunately none of the parties in Canberra have a clue how to make this happen.

Gerard Rennick

25,352 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 2 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Iโ€™ve Been Holding Onto This Video & Now That Donald Trump Suggested Eliminating The Income Tax & Replacing It With Tariffs You Should Watch This โ€œI don't think people understand the depth in which the federal income tax has screwed the American people because the income tax didn't exist for the first 137 years America was a country. It was implemented in 1913 and shortly after that, the income tax would become the government's primary source of generating revenue. The government would basically own your labor. So youโ€™re taxed at 33%. 1/3 of your work for the entire year belongs to the government. But before the federal income tax, tariffs were the government's primary source of generating revenue. So the government would come along and say, if companies want to import goods from other countries, they have to pay a tax on those goods. And this was the government's primary way of generating revenue. So let's use Nike as an example. They want to outsource their labor to other countries, India, China, and basically hire people that work for under $1 a day, basically sweatshops. They want sweatshops. Well, when they go to import those goods into the United States of America, they would be forced to pay that tariff. So if it's 25%, they would have to pay a 25% tax on the value of the goods coming into the country. Now, they could either pay that themselves in which now the government's primary way of generating revenue is through these international corporations that want to outsource labor and do international business, or they could negotiate with the company that they're importing from. I mean, in this case, it's themselves, but if they're working with another company, they could say, hey, if you want us to keep manufacturing in China, if you want us to keep manufacturing in India, you have to help us with these tariffs. And now the government's primary way of generating revenue would not be by taking money from you, the federal income tax, but it's from charging those international corporations and corporations that are in other countries. Isn't that a lot better than them taking the money from me and you? And yes, the price of international goods might go up. In fact, price of goods will go up. But that's okay because there's also an additional incentive for companies like Nike and all companies now to manufacture goods in America, which means American manufacturing would boom. And this is in theory, this is what had actually happened and what the federal income tax really took away from us because from the period of 1860 to 1900, America had emerged as the preeminent manufacturing country in the world. American steel, American oil, Europeans would come to America and they couldn't believe that we had electric powered curling irons. The United States of America, our country had become the innovative center of the world and jobs were booming. People talk about 1910 1920 1930 with the unions with Detroit and Detroit being the manufacturing center of the world, but that was really all of the United States of America. But once the federal income tax was passed, once that was established, the government no longer needed tariffs to be its primary source of revenue. Now the primary source of revenue was reaching directly into our pockets. And once the government was able to do that, they were able to seriously consider abandoning economic protectionism, abandoning those tariffs so that international corporations could outsource our jobs to other countries and the government wouldn't be hurt. The cost of goods would go down and the international corporations would do better than ever. But we would lose our jobs and the government would take ownership over our labor. And that was the real cost of the federal income tax. โ€Œ And that's the conversation they don't want Americans havingโ€ I canโ€™t transcribe it all due to Xโ€™s text limits but this is an excellent listen
4:50

Iโ€™ve Been Holding Onto This Video & Now That Donald Trump Suggested Eliminating The Income Tax & Replacing It With Tariffs You Should Watch This โ€œI don't think people understand the depth in which the federal income tax has screwed the American people because the income tax didn't exist for the first 137 years America was a country. It was implemented in 1913 and shortly after that, the income tax would become the government's primary source of generating revenue. The government would basically own your labor. So youโ€™re taxed at 33%. 1/3 of your work for the entire year belongs to the government. But before the federal income tax, tariffs were the government's primary source of generating revenue. So the government would come along and say, if companies want to import goods from other countries, they have to pay a tax on those goods. And this was the government's primary way of generating revenue. So let's use Nike as an example. They want to outsource their labor to other countries, India, China, and basically hire people that work for under $1 a day, basically sweatshops. They want sweatshops. Well, when they go to import those goods into the United States of America, they would be forced to pay that tariff. So if it's 25%, they would have to pay a 25% tax on the value of the goods coming into the country. Now, they could either pay that themselves in which now the government's primary way of generating revenue is through these international corporations that want to outsource labor and do international business, or they could negotiate with the company that they're importing from. I mean, in this case, it's themselves, but if they're working with another company, they could say, hey, if you want us to keep manufacturing in China, if you want us to keep manufacturing in India, you have to help us with these tariffs. And now the government's primary way of generating revenue would not be by taking money from you, the federal income tax, but it's from charging those international corporations and corporations that are in other countries. Isn't that a lot better than them taking the money from me and you? And yes, the price of international goods might go up. In fact, price of goods will go up. But that's okay because there's also an additional incentive for companies like Nike and all companies now to manufacture goods in America, which means American manufacturing would boom. And this is in theory, this is what had actually happened and what the federal income tax really took away from us because from the period of 1860 to 1900, America had emerged as the preeminent manufacturing country in the world. American steel, American oil, Europeans would come to America and they couldn't believe that we had electric powered curling irons. The United States of America, our country had become the innovative center of the world and jobs were booming. People talk about 1910 1920 1930 with the unions with Detroit and Detroit being the manufacturing center of the world, but that was really all of the United States of America. But once the federal income tax was passed, once that was established, the government no longer needed tariffs to be its primary source of revenue. Now the primary source of revenue was reaching directly into our pockets. And once the government was able to do that, they were able to seriously consider abandoning economic protectionism, abandoning those tariffs so that international corporations could outsource our jobs to other countries and the government wouldn't be hurt. The cost of goods would go down and the international corporations would do better than ever. But we would lose our jobs and the government would take ownership over our labor. And that was the real cost of the federal income tax. โ€Œ And that's the conversation they don't want Americans havingโ€ I canโ€™t transcribe it all due to Xโ€™s text limits but this is an excellent listen

Wall Street Apes

813,729 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 2 ๅนดๅ‰

BREAKING: I followed the trail of Mark Carneyโ€™s money-laundering scheme Iโ€™m writing to you from a tax haven called the Isle of Man. Iโ€™ve never seen any place quite like it. Itโ€™s a little island between Ireland and the UK, home to 85,000 people. And itโ€™s famous for two things: its annual motorcycle race, and billionaires avoiding their taxes. Thatโ€™s why Iโ€™m here: because two and a half years ago Mark Carney set up a shell company to avoid paying taxes in Canada. The Isle of Man has very few taxes โ€” no capitals gains tax, no inheritance tax, no wealth tax. Income tax is just 22%. Corporate taxes are 10% or less. But the Isle of Man does something more important: it allows oligarchs from around the world to pay taxes on their global income to the Isle of Man. So they can operate around the world, but choose to pay a fraction of their real tax obligation in the Isle of Man. And perhaps the most important feature of the Isle of Manโ€™s tax scheme is the secrecy. Anyone can set up shell companies hiding the true ownership of any business. Thatโ€™s why this place is full of Russian oligarchs, international drug dealers and semi-legal online casinos. They can hide their tracks. Which brings us to Mark Carney, the chairman of Brookfield Asset Management until just a few weeks ago. He set up a complex corporate structure to avoid paying Canadian taxes. To him, taxes are for the little people. In the video, I show how I searched the corporate registry to find Brookfield IOMโ€™s address, and to find the identity of their sole director: an 88-year-old man named Leslie Commins. The registry gave the address of Brookfield IOMโ€™s headquarters, but it wasnโ€™t in an office tower, or an office at all โ€” it was just Leslieโ€™s small apartment. Of course, 88-year-old Leslie Commins isnโ€™t the real owner of Brookfield IOM. Heโ€™s what they call a โ€œstraw manโ€. Of course his apartment isnโ€™t the world headquarters of Brookfield IOM. Of course the whole thing is a sham, to pretend that Brookfield IOM does business in the Isle of Man, so it can pay its global taxes there. Hey, wouldnโ€™t it be nice if you could do that? If you ran a barber shop, or farm, or restaurant, and instead of paying all the taxes and regulations Canada piles onto you, you could just have a guy in the Isle of Man saying thatโ€™s your world headquarters, so youโ€™ll pay all your taxes there? Itโ€™s obviously tax avoidance, which is why so many shady characters put their money in the Isle of Man. Like Mark Carney. I thought it was eye-opening to see how casually the man who was โ€œselectedโ€ to become our prime minister, engages in unethical tax-dodging for his well-connected friends. And remember, Carney has never answered where he personally paid taxes last year, or the year before, or the year before that. Did he pay them in the Isle of Man, or some other tax haven? Obviously thatโ€™s a question that the CBC would never ask. (I put eight questions to the Liberal Party in writing today, but obviously they wouldnโ€™t answer these questions, no matter who asks them.) Weโ€™ll keep at it. REPORT by Ezra Levant ๐Ÿ๐Ÿš›:
20:43

BREAKING: I followed the trail of Mark Carneyโ€™s money-laundering scheme Iโ€™m writing to you from a tax haven called the Isle of Man. Iโ€™ve never seen any place quite like it. Itโ€™s a little island between Ireland and the UK, home to 85,000 people. And itโ€™s famous for two things: its annual motorcycle race, and billionaires avoiding their taxes. Thatโ€™s why Iโ€™m here: because two and a half years ago Mark Carney set up a shell company to avoid paying taxes in Canada. The Isle of Man has very few taxes โ€” no capitals gains tax, no inheritance tax, no wealth tax. Income tax is just 22%. Corporate taxes are 10% or less. But the Isle of Man does something more important: it allows oligarchs from around the world to pay taxes on their global income to the Isle of Man. So they can operate around the world, but choose to pay a fraction of their real tax obligation in the Isle of Man. And perhaps the most important feature of the Isle of Manโ€™s tax scheme is the secrecy. Anyone can set up shell companies hiding the true ownership of any business. Thatโ€™s why this place is full of Russian oligarchs, international drug dealers and semi-legal online casinos. They can hide their tracks. Which brings us to Mark Carney, the chairman of Brookfield Asset Management until just a few weeks ago. He set up a complex corporate structure to avoid paying Canadian taxes. To him, taxes are for the little people. In the video, I show how I searched the corporate registry to find Brookfield IOMโ€™s address, and to find the identity of their sole director: an 88-year-old man named Leslie Commins. The registry gave the address of Brookfield IOMโ€™s headquarters, but it wasnโ€™t in an office tower, or an office at all โ€” it was just Leslieโ€™s small apartment. Of course, 88-year-old Leslie Commins isnโ€™t the real owner of Brookfield IOM. Heโ€™s what they call a โ€œstraw manโ€. Of course his apartment isnโ€™t the world headquarters of Brookfield IOM. Of course the whole thing is a sham, to pretend that Brookfield IOM does business in the Isle of Man, so it can pay its global taxes there. Hey, wouldnโ€™t it be nice if you could do that? If you ran a barber shop, or farm, or restaurant, and instead of paying all the taxes and regulations Canada piles onto you, you could just have a guy in the Isle of Man saying thatโ€™s your world headquarters, so youโ€™ll pay all your taxes there? Itโ€™s obviously tax avoidance, which is why so many shady characters put their money in the Isle of Man. Like Mark Carney. I thought it was eye-opening to see how casually the man who was โ€œselectedโ€ to become our prime minister, engages in unethical tax-dodging for his well-connected friends. And remember, Carney has never answered where he personally paid taxes last year, or the year before, or the year before that. Did he pay them in the Isle of Man, or some other tax haven? Obviously thatโ€™s a question that the CBC would never ask. (I put eight questions to the Liberal Party in writing today, but obviously they wouldnโ€™t answer these questions, no matter who asks them.) Weโ€™ll keep at it. REPORT by Ezra Levant ๐Ÿ๐Ÿš›:

Rebel News

369,771 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

Hundreds of thousands of Aussies are homeless. Rents have skyrocketed โ€” up 44% in just five years, adding over $10,000 a year to the average rental bill. House prices are surging as well, pricing homes out of reach of young Australians, who now need an annual salary of $220,000 to afford a home. The Government lies and claims that this is about supply, yet Australia is building more homes per capita than any other country in the world. The real issue is demand. Right now, there are 4.7 million non-citizen visa holders in Australia. Is mum and dad with one investment property causing this crisis? Of course not. Mass migration is outstripping supply, and big business is profiting โ€” the Big Four banks made $30 billion in profit last year. Every new mortgage adds $750 a month to their profit, or about $200,000 over the life of a loan. Foreign corporate landlords are another threat. Backed by giants like BlackRock and Vanguard, theyโ€™re gouging rents and siphoning profits overseas - after using every tax trick in the book to avoid paying tax. Labor and the Greens even gave these corporations a 15% tax cut. One Nation opposed it because we stand for Australians, not foreign investors. Thatโ€™s why One Nation has the most comprehensive housing plan of any party: end mass migration, ban foreign ownership permanently, introduce 30-year fixed-rate peopleโ€™s mortgages, allow super to help with deposits, cut GST on building materials, overhaul costly building code changes and limit negative gearing to a maximum of two properties. One Nation will make housing affordable again and protect Australians from predatory practices. Only One Nation has a real plan to fix this crisis.
6:05

Hundreds of thousands of Aussies are homeless. Rents have skyrocketed โ€” up 44% in just five years, adding over $10,000 a year to the average rental bill. House prices are surging as well, pricing homes out of reach of young Australians, who now need an annual salary of $220,000 to afford a home. The Government lies and claims that this is about supply, yet Australia is building more homes per capita than any other country in the world. The real issue is demand. Right now, there are 4.7 million non-citizen visa holders in Australia. Is mum and dad with one investment property causing this crisis? Of course not. Mass migration is outstripping supply, and big business is profiting โ€” the Big Four banks made $30 billion in profit last year. Every new mortgage adds $750 a month to their profit, or about $200,000 over the life of a loan. Foreign corporate landlords are another threat. Backed by giants like BlackRock and Vanguard, theyโ€™re gouging rents and siphoning profits overseas - after using every tax trick in the book to avoid paying tax. Labor and the Greens even gave these corporations a 15% tax cut. One Nation opposed it because we stand for Australians, not foreign investors. Thatโ€™s why One Nation has the most comprehensive housing plan of any party: end mass migration, ban foreign ownership permanently, introduce 30-year fixed-rate peopleโ€™s mortgages, allow super to help with deposits, cut GST on building materials, overhaul costly building code changes and limit negative gearing to a maximum of two properties. One Nation will make housing affordable again and protect Australians from predatory practices. Only One Nation has a real plan to fix this crisis.

Malcolm Roberts ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ

24,253 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 8 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

David david friedberg explains the rise of socialism and the hypocrisy of Ro Khanna: "It's a lot easier to claim an enemy and get elected, than it is to fix a difficult policy problem." "Ro Khanna is the perfect example of this." "This is some dude who has a $300M net worth. His children have memberships at 3 country clubs." "The dude lives in a $10M house in Washington, DC." "And he used to be the moderate Silicon Valley guy who would go around to all the tech CEOs and founders and VCs and be like, 'Give me your money. I'm a moderate. We're going to make the Democratic Party work for you.'" "Then he saw the tides change, and he's like, 'Oh, this is yum, yum. I'm going to run for president in 2028.'" "Just to be clear on this, he is so unlikable, I think he'll likely end up being Secretary of Housing and Urban Development if AOC is elected president." "I do not disagree with him or Gavin or anyone else that tax policy in America is fucked up." "When billionaires borrow against their unrealized capital gains, they should pay capital gains tax. Capital gains tax should be 40%, not 15% or 18% or 20%. In fact, labor should pay less. Income tax should be much lower. Capital gains should be much higher. That would be a fair tax policy." "I don't know a lot of people who are wealthy who will look me in the eye and truly disagree with that." "It's a lot of bullshit when we all say, 'It incentivizes investment.' Great, it incentivizes investment. What are you going to do with your excess capital if the tax rate is 40% versus 20%? You're not gonna invest it now? Of course you're going to fucking invest it." "But instead of those practical solutions like I just laid out, they're all like, 'Let's go fire up the fucking socialist train because it's worked so well in fucking Cuba and Venezuela and the Soviet Union and all these other places.'" "What both parties are missing is a policy agenda that says: Here's the shit we have to do to keep America from going down the socialist death spiral. And they all should be fucking doing it, both sides."
3:42

David david friedberg explains the rise of socialism and the hypocrisy of Ro Khanna: "It's a lot easier to claim an enemy and get elected, than it is to fix a difficult policy problem." "Ro Khanna is the perfect example of this." "This is some dude who has a $300M net worth. His children have memberships at 3 country clubs." "The dude lives in a $10M house in Washington, DC." "And he used to be the moderate Silicon Valley guy who would go around to all the tech CEOs and founders and VCs and be like, 'Give me your money. I'm a moderate. We're going to make the Democratic Party work for you.'" "Then he saw the tides change, and he's like, 'Oh, this is yum, yum. I'm going to run for president in 2028.'" "Just to be clear on this, he is so unlikable, I think he'll likely end up being Secretary of Housing and Urban Development if AOC is elected president." "I do not disagree with him or Gavin or anyone else that tax policy in America is fucked up." "When billionaires borrow against their unrealized capital gains, they should pay capital gains tax. Capital gains tax should be 40%, not 15% or 18% or 20%. In fact, labor should pay less. Income tax should be much lower. Capital gains should be much higher. That would be a fair tax policy." "I don't know a lot of people who are wealthy who will look me in the eye and truly disagree with that." "It's a lot of bullshit when we all say, 'It incentivizes investment.' Great, it incentivizes investment. What are you going to do with your excess capital if the tax rate is 40% versus 20%? You're not gonna invest it now? Of course you're going to fucking invest it." "But instead of those practical solutions like I just laid out, they're all like, 'Let's go fire up the fucking socialist train because it's worked so well in fucking Cuba and Venezuela and the Soviet Union and all these other places.'" "What both parties are missing is a policy agenda that says: Here's the shit we have to do to keep America from going down the socialist death spiral. And they all should be fucking doing it, both sides."

Molly Oโ€™Shea

585,138 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 11 ๅคฉๅ‰

When people say things like โ€˜Why are people worried about wealth taxes that will never affect themโ€™ it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works and why even people who arenโ€™t rich, donโ€™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 ยฃ25 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 isnโ€™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. Itโ€™s very disingenuous to assume the reason why people donโ€™t support wealth taxes is because they believe they will one day be in the 1%. They donโ€™t support wealth taxes for the most part because they understand they simply do not work. Zack Polanski is a dangerous man who isnโ€™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 thereโ€™s a lot of the wealth in the city of London yet at the same time maintains that wealth taxes arenโ€™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?
2:12

When people say things like โ€˜Why are people worried about wealth taxes that will never affect themโ€™ it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works and why even people who arenโ€™t rich, donโ€™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 ยฃ25 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 isnโ€™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. Itโ€™s very disingenuous to assume the reason why people donโ€™t support wealth taxes is because they believe they will one day be in the 1%. They donโ€™t support wealth taxes for the most part because they understand they simply do not work. Zack Polanski is a dangerous man who isnโ€™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 thereโ€™s a lot of the wealth in the city of London yet at the same time maintains that wealth taxes arenโ€™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 ๐Ÿด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ

86,441 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 2 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

First, I would like to express my gratitude to all the over 200,000 who on X have seen the video about interest-free loans. It must have hit a nerve. Today I want to talk about another important part of the prosperity party's economic program. The property tax for your primary residence must be removed. Totally. Property taxes on one's primary residence are simply theft. Especially now that we in the prosperity party have documented how the state can produce revenue without stealing from the population. For example, by a 1% tax on digitally transfers of money or simply by creating money out of thin air, as the government already does when billions are spent on deadly covid vaccines, lockdowns and white genocidal wars. So remove the property tax. It is theft. Another way to finance the tax cut. You could raise the property tax on companies that own more than five homes This will help to increase property ownership among the population instead of allowing companies like Black Rock to โ€œown everythingโ€ for you as the World Economic Forum has set as their target for 2030. Where you are supposed to โ€œown nothingโ€. Removing the property tax on peoples primary homes will help ensure the well-being and quality of life for everyone and ensure that more people can afford to invest in a home for themselves and their family. This, together with other parts of the prosperity party's economic program, will ensure everyone at least a middle-class life. If a single human being today is starving or suffering, it is by design. The world is incredibly abundant. The traitorous people who currently runs our corrupt governments do not want to create welfare for you and your family. Here is what you could do. Support parties like the prosperity party, or if you donโ€™t have such a party in your country, please use our ideas and propose them as your own in the party you belong to. My Name Is Mads Palsvig, I have a Masters in Law, Bac in Finance, and have been an investment banker at Morgan Stanely, Credit Suisse First Boston and Danske Bank, I have advised the privately owned Federal Reserve and ECB in conferences, private meetings, and numerous drinks and dinners
2:54

First, I would like to express my gratitude to all the over 200,000 who on X have seen the video about interest-free loans. It must have hit a nerve. Today I want to talk about another important part of the prosperity party's economic program. The property tax for your primary residence must be removed. Totally. Property taxes on one's primary residence are simply theft. Especially now that we in the prosperity party have documented how the state can produce revenue without stealing from the population. For example, by a 1% tax on digitally transfers of money or simply by creating money out of thin air, as the government already does when billions are spent on deadly covid vaccines, lockdowns and white genocidal wars. So remove the property tax. It is theft. Another way to finance the tax cut. You could raise the property tax on companies that own more than five homes This will help to increase property ownership among the population instead of allowing companies like Black Rock to โ€œown everythingโ€ for you as the World Economic Forum has set as their target for 2030. Where you are supposed to โ€œown nothingโ€. Removing the property tax on peoples primary homes will help ensure the well-being and quality of life for everyone and ensure that more people can afford to invest in a home for themselves and their family. This, together with other parts of the prosperity party's economic program, will ensure everyone at least a middle-class life. If a single human being today is starving or suffering, it is by design. The world is incredibly abundant. The traitorous people who currently runs our corrupt governments do not want to create welfare for you and your family. Here is what you could do. Support parties like the prosperity party, or if you donโ€™t have such a party in your country, please use our ideas and propose them as your own in the party you belong to. My Name Is Mads Palsvig, I have a Masters in Law, Bac in Finance, and have been an investment banker at Morgan Stanely, Credit Suisse First Boston and Danske Bank, I have advised the privately owned Federal Reserve and ECB in conferences, private meetings, and numerous drinks and dinners

Mads Palsvig

30,034 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 8 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Elon just got Mississippi to pay for his $20 billion AI data center. And the state thinks they WON. This is funny, let me explain: xAI announced a massive data center in Southaven, Mississippi. Governor Tate Reeves called it "the largest private investment in state history." $20 billion. Hundreds of jobs. Economic transformation. Except Mississippi isn't getting $20 billion. They're GIVING Elon $2-3 billion in tax breaks. The fine print: Under Mississippi's 2024 data center law, xAI pays ZERO sales tax on equipment, ZERO corporate income tax, ZERO franchise tax. xAI is buying $15-18 billion in computing hardware. Mississippi sales tax is 7%. That's $1+ billion waived just on equipment purchases. Add corporate tax exemptions over the next decade and you're looking at $2-3 billion in total giveaways. For a state with a $7 billion annual budget. What Mississippi actually gets: "Hundreds of permanent jobs" (no specific number). "Thousands of indirect jobs" (construction work that ends when building is done). Tax revenue from... wait, they exempted all the taxes. So the only money coming in is property tax and income tax from a few hundred employees. In a state that already has super low tax rates. The timeline makes it obvious this was already done: Announced January 8th. Operations begin February. Three weeks from announcement to launch? They bought and retrofitted an 800,000 sq ft building BEFORE telling anyone. This wasn't a negotiation. It was a press conference for a done deal. Mississippi Development Authority said xAI "didn't ask for special treatment." Because Mississippi already created a law giving data centers everything they want. xAI just exploited it at the biggest scale yet. The name is perfect: MACROHARDRR. Opposite of Microsoft. Elon trademarked it last year. He's building a $20 billion troll to Microsoft funded by Mississippi taxpayers. What actually happens: xAI operates tax-free for a decade. Builds the world's most powerful AI supercomputer. Generates billions in revenue. Pays Mississippi nothing. Meanwhile Mississippi schools and hospitals stay underfunded. When locals complain about environmental impact, xAI points to the jobs they created. Perfect closed loop. Every other state is watching this. "If Mississippi can give away billions in taxes and call it economic development, why can't we?" Race to the bottom starts now. Elon just proved the playbook: Raise $20 billion, find a desperate state, get them to waive all taxes, build your infrastructure for free, own it forever, profit tax-free. All while media calls it "investment." It's not investment IN Mississippi. It's extraction FROM Mississippi. Mississippi gave Elon a $20 billion playground and didn't charge admission. He gets the world's most powerful AI infrastructure. They get a press release and construction jobs. Biggest corporate giveaway in modern history or genius economic development... Next 5 years will tell us. But one thing is for sure: Elon's smart as f*ck for this.
1:02

Elon just got Mississippi to pay for his $20 billion AI data center. And the state thinks they WON. This is funny, let me explain: xAI announced a massive data center in Southaven, Mississippi. Governor Tate Reeves called it "the largest private investment in state history." $20 billion. Hundreds of jobs. Economic transformation. Except Mississippi isn't getting $20 billion. They're GIVING Elon $2-3 billion in tax breaks. The fine print: Under Mississippi's 2024 data center law, xAI pays ZERO sales tax on equipment, ZERO corporate income tax, ZERO franchise tax. xAI is buying $15-18 billion in computing hardware. Mississippi sales tax is 7%. That's $1+ billion waived just on equipment purchases. Add corporate tax exemptions over the next decade and you're looking at $2-3 billion in total giveaways. For a state with a $7 billion annual budget. What Mississippi actually gets: "Hundreds of permanent jobs" (no specific number). "Thousands of indirect jobs" (construction work that ends when building is done). Tax revenue from... wait, they exempted all the taxes. So the only money coming in is property tax and income tax from a few hundred employees. In a state that already has super low tax rates. The timeline makes it obvious this was already done: Announced January 8th. Operations begin February. Three weeks from announcement to launch? They bought and retrofitted an 800,000 sq ft building BEFORE telling anyone. This wasn't a negotiation. It was a press conference for a done deal. Mississippi Development Authority said xAI "didn't ask for special treatment." Because Mississippi already created a law giving data centers everything they want. xAI just exploited it at the biggest scale yet. The name is perfect: MACROHARDRR. Opposite of Microsoft. Elon trademarked it last year. He's building a $20 billion troll to Microsoft funded by Mississippi taxpayers. What actually happens: xAI operates tax-free for a decade. Builds the world's most powerful AI supercomputer. Generates billions in revenue. Pays Mississippi nothing. Meanwhile Mississippi schools and hospitals stay underfunded. When locals complain about environmental impact, xAI points to the jobs they created. Perfect closed loop. Every other state is watching this. "If Mississippi can give away billions in taxes and call it economic development, why can't we?" Race to the bottom starts now. Elon just proved the playbook: Raise $20 billion, find a desperate state, get them to waive all taxes, build your infrastructure for free, own it forever, profit tax-free. All while media calls it "investment." It's not investment IN Mississippi. It's extraction FROM Mississippi. Mississippi gave Elon a $20 billion playground and didn't charge admission. He gets the world's most powerful AI infrastructure. They get a press release and construction jobs. Biggest corporate giveaway in modern history or genius economic development... Next 5 years will tell us. But one thing is for sure: Elon's smart as f*ck for this.

Ricardo

41,539 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 6 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Today I announced the Affordable Groceries Act to address our growing affordability crisis in San Francisco. For years, the price of milk, fresh vegetables, and more has been rising by double digits. At the same time, large chain corporations are leaving grocery stores and pharmacies as "zombie stores" - paying their lease to keep the storefronts vacant and block competition. The Affordable Groceries Act aims to end those food deserts by providing stimulus incentives to new grocery stores and pharmacies, while taxing zombie stores to generate revenue that could be used to fund new stores that sell affordable, fresh food. It works in 3 steps: 1. Streamline new stores, by eliminating conditional use permits for new groceries and pharmacies on vacant lots, while providing tax credits to reduce pharmacy gross receipts taxes. 2. Tax zombie stores, by ensuring that large chain corporations that deliberately leave grocery stores and pharmacies empty pay a vacancy tax for as long as they block competition from using the storefronts. The tax would not apply to small businesses, or to any new store that opens after January 2027. 3. Fund affordable groceries, by establishing an Affordable Grocery Fund that will subsidize operators that provide fresh affordable food. This could help corners stores convert into full grocery stores with fresh food, or let the city purchase buildings and rent them out to grocery operators who agree to keep prices low. We're bringing Affordable Groceries Act to the ballot this November, so you can make your voices heard that every San Franciscan deserves fresh affordable food in their neighborhood.
2:07

Today I announced the Affordable Groceries Act to address our growing affordability crisis in San Francisco. For years, the price of milk, fresh vegetables, and more has been rising by double digits. At the same time, large chain corporations are leaving grocery stores and pharmacies as "zombie stores" - paying their lease to keep the storefronts vacant and block competition. The Affordable Groceries Act aims to end those food deserts by providing stimulus incentives to new grocery stores and pharmacies, while taxing zombie stores to generate revenue that could be used to fund new stores that sell affordable, fresh food. It works in 3 steps: 1. Streamline new stores, by eliminating conditional use permits for new groceries and pharmacies on vacant lots, while providing tax credits to reduce pharmacy gross receipts taxes. 2. Tax zombie stores, by ensuring that large chain corporations that deliberately leave grocery stores and pharmacies empty pay a vacancy tax for as long as they block competition from using the storefronts. The tax would not apply to small businesses, or to any new store that opens after January 2027. 3. Fund affordable groceries, by establishing an Affordable Grocery Fund that will subsidize operators that provide fresh affordable food. This could help corners stores convert into full grocery stores with fresh food, or let the city purchase buildings and rent them out to grocery operators who agree to keep prices low. We're bringing Affordable Groceries Act to the ballot this November, so you can make your voices heard that every San Franciscan deserves fresh affordable food in their neighborhood.

Bilal Mahmood ้ฆฌ็™พๆจ‚

13,695 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Mamdani just set off a devastating domino effect with his new tax on the second homes of the wealthy in New York City. He's bragging about forcing those evil capitalists to pay their fair share so the City can fund more libraries. But has he ever actually done the MATH? And I mean real math, not socialist math. Because the rich homeowners will do the real math. And they'll LEAVE. Socialist math ALWAYS leads to suffering for the very people it promised to lift up. Here's what Mamdani just set into motion: First, high-end owners will just dump their properties. Why pay the tax when it's cheaper to rent a nice hotel? And they'll sell low because 1) NOBODY wants to pay that tax, so buyers will just factor it into the property's cost and offer less, and 2) the longer the sellers wait to sell, the more they're being taxed. So, selling low is cheaper. Because math. That will drive down luxury property values citywide. Sounds great, right? Well... unless you're a developer. Let's say you've already gotten funding from the bank to build new housing, including that affordable housing the socialists love so much. But now, the expensive units at the top of the building won't sell for nearly as much as the bank was hoping for. So, they run the math and the project stops. Now, all that's left is a giant hole. And all those people hired to build that building - hundreds of excavators, plumbers, electricians, and ironworkers - just lost their jobs, their hourly paychecks, and their pension credits for the year. From there, it's more basic math - supply and demand. The supply doesn't get built, so the demand increases and the rent for other affordable units goes up. The policy sold as "pro-working class" just made their lives more expensive. But at least the City will generate more taxes for the libraries, right? Nope. The rich will dump their second homes, so there goes that tax money. Nobody will want to buy that property as a second home, so maybe it will sell to someone living there full time. That's a win by Mamdani's math, but it also means nobody's paying that tax anymore. And also, all those people who just lost their jobs won't be paying taxes either. But hey, at least you stuck it to the capitalists! That's socialism in a nutshell. Thanks, Mamdani.
8:02

Mamdani just set off a devastating domino effect with his new tax on the second homes of the wealthy in New York City. He's bragging about forcing those evil capitalists to pay their fair share so the City can fund more libraries. But has he ever actually done the MATH? And I mean real math, not socialist math. Because the rich homeowners will do the real math. And they'll LEAVE. Socialist math ALWAYS leads to suffering for the very people it promised to lift up. Here's what Mamdani just set into motion: First, high-end owners will just dump their properties. Why pay the tax when it's cheaper to rent a nice hotel? And they'll sell low because 1) NOBODY wants to pay that tax, so buyers will just factor it into the property's cost and offer less, and 2) the longer the sellers wait to sell, the more they're being taxed. So, selling low is cheaper. Because math. That will drive down luxury property values citywide. Sounds great, right? Well... unless you're a developer. Let's say you've already gotten funding from the bank to build new housing, including that affordable housing the socialists love so much. But now, the expensive units at the top of the building won't sell for nearly as much as the bank was hoping for. So, they run the math and the project stops. Now, all that's left is a giant hole. And all those people hired to build that building - hundreds of excavators, plumbers, electricians, and ironworkers - just lost their jobs, their hourly paychecks, and their pension credits for the year. From there, it's more basic math - supply and demand. The supply doesn't get built, so the demand increases and the rent for other affordable units goes up. The policy sold as "pro-working class" just made their lives more expensive. But at least the City will generate more taxes for the libraries, right? Nope. The rich will dump their second homes, so there goes that tax money. Nobody will want to buy that property as a second home, so maybe it will sell to someone living there full time. That's a win by Mamdani's math, but it also means nobody's paying that tax anymore. And also, all those people who just lost their jobs won't be paying taxes either. But hey, at least you stuck it to the capitalists! That's socialism in a nutshell. Thanks, Mamdani.

Glenn Beck

577,898 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 9 ๅคฉๅ‰