Sure. That’s all well and good. But importantly most of the grooming gangs weren’t full of white people. And yes, white people act terrible. But the rape gangs were specifically racially and religiously homogenous. We shouldn’t bury our heads to this.
Allegedly, the origins of Cosa Nostra (though almost certainly untrue) was when a French sergeant tried to rape a young married Sicilian woman. Her husband killed the French and then the mafia protected the husband from the occupying French.
A few thoughts:
-
It is assumed that Rotherham is the most prolific. The report talks about London and how the mayor there has denied any such problem in London while more evidence is coming out. Is it possible that other areas were simply more tight lipped than Rotherham?
-
It seems with larger populations, it would be easier to “hide.” Not sure how this cuts (ie maybe larger amount but smaller per capita or larger amounts and larger per capita because the police have other things to worry about like people tweeting).
-
Who did the investigation I. Those other towns? Was it “I investigated myself and turns out I did okay?”
Obviously I’m saying if he won (ie if reform support went to restore)
I loathe immigration. When I first heard 250k, my reaction was “is that number real.” Why would someone’s first reaction be “Catholic schools murdered a bunch of native Americans?”
Farage will welch. When push comes to shove, Nigel won’t do what’s necessary to re migrate the population. He is mOre cowardly (if possible) than Trump. I think Lowe actually would, notwithstanding media howling, affect real re migration. Hell a couple of Nigel’s key members are the architects of the migration replacement. Nigel is offended by people like Tommy Robinson. He backed off his rage comment re Henry Novak.
I’m hoping that restore beats out reform somehow in the Makersfield election at which point there would be preference cascade.
The problem here isn’t this his office doesn’t think a position lacks support. The problem is that his office is prejudiced against certain outcomes and is using “error” as a backdoor to change those outcomes.
Farage seemingly still supports Muslims in the UK as a class. He is okay with a multi cultural society as long as it remains slightly British slightly longer.
We could look at things like terrorist attacks in the last fifty years. Or we could look at things like the UK where Muslims end up in large amounts.
None of that adds up to “more dangerous than Islam”. All you have done is shown a threat; not a relative threat.
Does this include her congressional pension?
Buffett stepped down
Bernie never really worked—just was a gadfly in the senate
You get less of what you punish
If the argument is “he used more and therefore he should pay more for his use,” then that leads not to progressive tax but to benefits based tax. Take road capacity. Charge tolls for road usage. That’s almost certainly less than Elon’s taxes.
Re public education, the whole concept is to build skills. People have gotten compensated for those skills. Those laborers pay taxes (as does Elon). Why would you think Elon has taken out more from the system of tax dollars directed to higher education as opposed to given more back? Indeed, isn’t it the opposite? The person who uses that education and becomes a Redditor owes society a lot of money. Someone who richly employs a bunch of college graduates doesn’t owe society anything.
Re waste — we can do sinking funds.
Yes and they passed an amendment to make it constitutional. Good luck getting the wealth tax amendment passed.
I don’t think the computer business was bankrupt. The iMac saved it.
That’s literally punishing success.
I find this unreasonable. Yes, Musk benefited from a capitalist system. But so did literally everyone else. Nothing stopped you or your neighbor from doing what Musk did. The difference is he did it and you didn’t. And because of that, you want to punish him? Why are you envious?
Moreover, this “you didn’t build it” theory collapses of its own weight. The argument seems to be society enabled this collection of wealth and therefore society has an unconditional claim to the entirety of the wealth. But of course, society “didn’t build that” either. So now we have to split ownership and figure out how much society is owed.
And society is owed very little because Elon has already made society massively better off than simply 1.3 trillion. Besides the large taxes he has already paid, he has brought along a ton of American workers paying them handsomely and making thousands of millionaires and giving a comfortable life to many not millionaires. Also he makes a really cool car that millions love. There is consumer surplus there.
The whole concept behind a market economy is the belief that businesses make the world on net better for all. Sure the business leader may reap individually the most rewards from a business but that doesn’t mean they reap the most rewards in the aggregate.
This tall poppy syndrome is death.
The whole point of starship is to radically reduce the cost per ton of putting things into space. You are acting like the Falcon Heavy is the end result.
I think you aren’t being imaginative enough re Starlink.
-
First you have airlines, remote worksites, cruises, and other uses. Those prices can increase over time once customers get used to and thus demand the good.
-
You have areas without broadbrand. In the U.S., this is rural areas. But worldwide, it is a lot larger. Sure this market may not be the most lucrative but with a large enough vol becoming the ISP for the entire third world could be valuable.
Sure except there are a lot of companies in the most valuable in the world that are real world makers. Wal mart is worth about a trillion.
It’s called a margin loan. If you aren’t super poor, you can mortgage against your stocks.
What if you borrow against your home to finance an improvement?
To me, make capital gains tax rate at 10% and you eliminate these silly games whilst probably raising revenue.
- Prev
- Next

So let’s say you are designing an immigration system. Let’s say you want some small amount of immigration but a lot of people are coming to your country.
Are you going to make decisions based on limited info and discriminate against the group who commit crimes at massive rates or will you “treat everyone like an individual?”
More options
Context Copy link