The lockdowns caused a massive plunge in the stock market. There was a recovery, but I don't see how that could have been caused by money printing. Printing money doesn't affect the real prices of assets.
What makes this classified information? The actual targets were not specified.
How do you know you didn't just get lucky with a coin flip?
That's just a way of saying you'd rather have savings than not. It doesn't tell you anything about the merits of owning versus renting a car.
The UK has an unwritten constitution. But that's irrelevant. I didn't say it had a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. It has freedom of speech. They could repeal that law, but they haven't. They've simply interpreted it to not be as restrictive as the first amendment. The US Supreme Court has done the same in the past.
You're missing the point. The difference in freedom of speech between the US and Canada and the UK is not because of the first amendment. Canada and the UK also have laws protecting freedom of speech in basically the same language, but they've been interpreted differently. The first amendment also used to be interpreted very loosely, resulting in the US having many laws restricting speech in the past that would not be allowed today.
What protects anyone else from frivolous charges?
Who uses that definition of HBD? HBD refers to socially relevant differences. Population genetics is based on possibly inconsequential differences that are nearly universally accepted. HBD doesn't even refer to differences in skin colour which are totally uncontroversial. Even if you want to define HBD this way, how is that relevant? No one is calling him racist because he's interested in population genetics.
I get your point. I'm just criticizing other things you've said.
What reason is there to think he is unsure that the Holocaust happened?
Population genetics is not HBD. That is not what is getting him called racist.
Don't all countries with legal systems based on the English common law have freedom of speech?
Why wouldn't the ecumene include Ethiopia and India?
Regression to the mean is an argument for having higher or lower trait thresholds for certain races, but not for excluding those races altogether.
Capgains are taxed based on a percentage of the appreciation. It's not like a financial transactions tax that is a flat fee every time a trade is made. A 20% gain will be subject to the same tax as 2 equivalent 10% gains would be.
Yes, but if you have to pay tax on the first 10%, you won't get another 10% gain. Let's say you have a $1,000 investment that grows at 10% per year and the capital gains tax is 25%. If you sell after two years, you'll have gained $210 and pay $52.50 in tax, leaving you with $1,157.50.
If instead you sold and rebought after one year, then you'd have a gain of $100 that year, leaving you with $1,075 after tax. That would give you another gain of $107.50 after the next year, in which you'd pay $26.88 after tax, leaving you with $1,155.62.
Dividends are taxed at either the personal income tax rate, or the capgains rate if they're qualified dividends.
It could be in a tax sheltered account though.
The less frequently you sell your assets, the lower the effective tax rate due to capital gains tax. Also, if it's something that generates a return other than through appreciation (e.g. a dividend paying stock or real estate), by holding to it longer, you realize more of the value in a form that doesn't count as a capital gain and so you pay less tax.
I'm a bit confused by this concept. Elsewhere, I've read that Scotland should also be on the other side of the line. Is this actually a robust concept and does it really explain anything?
I don't think that's what the legislation refers to. It's broader than that.
Isn't that evidence against the idea that property taxes don't reduce economic activity? Also, those properties are still developed and their owners are paying higher taxes than they would if they were not.
If we're not thinking of the same people, then what does being able to down vote accomplish?
If they can profitably insure dangerous drivers, what is the problem? Society is being compensated for the risk those drivers pose.
I guess they won't be satisfied then. I don't think the justice system should be retributive.
I disagree because if the link is on something sufficiently interesting, it's guaranteed that someone will have something to say about it. When it is about something not so noteworthy, then it makes sense to require some commentary.
I really don't get why the link alone isn't enough to start the discussion.
Whether people are happy is a different question than whether their purchasing power has gone up. It doesn't make sense to say that people's purchasing power has actually gone down because, even though it's gone up, they're actually less happy.
It's fine to say that there are more important things than the economy and that people's lives can be getting worse even if the economy is doing well, but that is not an argument that the economy is actually doing badly.
This is the first I'm hearing about this. Where is that happening?
This is the path Israel chose. Territorial expansion is not without its costs, it makes a lot of people very unhappy if you come in and take their land.
What are you referring to?
He was not even afforded this small amount of due process required to establish citizenship. He was not deported as the result of any hearing. The result of the hearings was that he won the right not to be deported. They deported him anyway, accidentally and illegally. If they accidentally deported a citizen, at what point would that citizen be able to prove his citizenship before leaving the country? The current system would not put that person in front of a judge before getting deported.
More options
Context Copy link