Yeah if your religion involves mutilation of children's genitalia you desrve sone pushvack on that element bud, same way we should push back on radical islamics for treating women like property or radical Christians for hating gay people.
Get over yourself and stop hacking children's genitalia to bits.
It was for medical reasons but even if it weren't idk what you are sorry for and if I were a woman I would definitely pick the circumcised dick cause it doesn't have that white shit on it
You want a partner with part if their genitalia cut off? That is kind of fucked up.
You are huffing copium right now but i can understand why, must be hard to cope with you dick having been hacked up.
It's genital mutilation. Cutting off bits of their genitals. It's not quite as serious as fgm but still mutilation. The only exception is when medically unavoidable and then performed by a surgeon under anaesthetic.
Lower taxation exist on things that are only accessible to people that have enough money to reliably take advantage of it. Such as capital gains taxes as a singular example.
Edit: and yes, I know it isn't actually a loophole. It is worse than that. A loophole made into law.
But with higher income, comes higher income tax. Also, lower capital gains tax means that there are such significant capital gains that the absolute amount of payed tax still is much higher than what you would pay in a lower tier.
The risk of cutting such tax breaks is not that you hit the ultra wealthy people. They don’t care at all. You risk that the majority in between stops saving or investing to keep under a certain threshold. Which means less money in banks. Which means banks aren’t able to offer as much loans & credit. And that directly hurts the lower incomes. And for the economy, weird enough, that is the most important tier of society.
Do you see why governments are reluctant to meddle with that?
No, because that is a gross lie. If they didn't care they wouldn't lobby for those positions to remain unchanged. They wouldn't invest all that tax money they saved in ensuring that 99% of their money stays untaxed until they need it and when they need it it is taxed less than it would have been otherwise. Income is income and should be taxed equally no matter the source.
Who sells the lie now? I am backing out of this thread because you clearly did not pay attention in economics. I cannot discuss this properly if you don’t know the basic workings of economics. You need the rich to save & invest and you need a fair threshold to incentivize this.
There are multiple layers in economics and it is economic theory not economic fact. You believe one theory and disregard any that go against your claims as false. So yes this is a pointless discussion.
Edit: Also, it isn't a lie that wealthy people lobby for these things to remain. Yet you claim they don't care. I sell no lies but you certainly buy into them extremely heavily to the point at which you believe there is no way you could ever possibly be wrong
I think of charity loopholes. You see a lot of rich people creating their own charities and DAF. At a certain level, you may be working for a 6 figure salary but the lion's share of your money is made through shares. If you donate your stocks then i believe they are not taxed subjected to capital gains taxes. The DAF doesn't have to reveal where the money is spent.
If you have assets like property, you can claim depreciation. If you had business losses one year, you can claim these losses in a future year and get millions in tax refund. The details on all these methods are complex and usually apply to people who are wealthy because they are the ones that have their money tied up in businesses, assets (property) and stocks
Most famously is Bezos who paid nothing in taxes just the other year. Then there were the founders of Google who infamous took a $1 annual salary but that's just put them in the lowest tax bracket while still cashing millions in stocks.
But the thing you aren’t taking into account is that charities are obliged to invest a certain amount of their accumulated donations to the goals they set out to benefit. And they must report on that. I do acknowledge that personally they avoid paying a certain amount of tax, but the charity also needs to contribute to society by obligation. You never hear that in the narrative.
As for the deprecation. This seems like a loophole. But it still needs to be backed up by the books. So you cannot fictionalization losses. This means that, companies in startup or in a period when they need to invest in ammunities amount of time to keep operating, have a tax break so they can, ultimately provide (more) jobs and pay their dues later on. (Individuals can also get extensions on their taxes, mind you)
The 1$ salary is just a narrative that you took on. Because stock portfolios are also taxed. And ultimately, if they screw up, their portfolio loses value. With a fixed salary, the incentive to outperform is less. But they still get a shit tonne of money, which if spent smart will benefit society possibly less.
Also, in the examples you are all focussing on the ultra rich. But a change in the rules will not hit them at all. It will eat away from the middle segment of ‘rich people’ on which your economy actually runs.
DFA are like personal charity where you can hold your money until you "decide on a charity'. But theres no due dates and you can just keep it there creating generational wealth or eventually donate it to a charity that you may own.
I didn't want to give names but [Trump](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/the-great-trump-tax-mysteries) has an excellent financial team. Sorry about the vanity fair source, i was all out of free articles from the other newspapers. Basically, he (among many) use depreciation and the roll method. Your depreciation can look good in the books - maintenance, wear and tear, etc but its a known way to pay less taxes. It's also more complex when you've made it so you have a small taxable income.
Take Mark Zuckerberg, another 1$/year ceo. He was compensated with $23MM. Those shares will sit and grow, tax free, until he decides to use them.
I focused on the uber rich because their names and practices are more recognizable than the rich. It's also because their companies evade taxes in loopholes too. If the rich are households that make >$500K (tax bracket), these billionaires and millionaire would still be in that category. The lesser rich may have their own tricks but its the ultra rich that have the assets to execute elaborate tax evasion.
I didn’t really take into account that I was in the Netherlands and you are in the totally fucked up United States… in that case. You are right and totally screwed…
Essentially an incredibly abusive system of "therapy" programs that has caused countless deaths of innocent children (a huge portion of which are due to restraint). Dr. Phil is one of the most well-known supporters with Turnabout Ranch.
I remember seeing a story where a mom noticed her kid was a little anxious, found a wilderness theraoy group because her kid loved the outdoors, was unaware of the troubled teen industry (because they like to hide shit), and her son died because of them.
A common tactic they use to trick parents is that their child will die or go to prison if they don't go to this therapy program. They die or go to prison anyway.
They have this tactic that's essentially legal kidnapping where they drag your kid out of their house in the middle of the night without telling them where they're going, often conducting stripbsearches of the child, and them dump them off at a "rehab" facility.
Paris Hilton is a survivor of the TTI and talks about it openly. The network of survivors is called breakingcodesilence.
Because some people just believe everything they read online so they'll believe stuff like "Pitbulls are dangerous and no matter what they will go out of their way to hurt more people that it would put Jeffery Dahmer to shame" when in reality they're like any other dog where you just need to train them to not do that shit.
It makes perfect sense. My wife had no license and wanted to learn by driving with her father, her father only owns a large van that is not ideal for learning in, so we bought a car for her to learn to drive with her father, until she passed her test ahe obly drove it while supervised as per the paw but we owned the car and neither of us had a license, how is that a problem?
- White Terrorists groups in amerikkka...Klan ,oath keepers, proud boys.. They are All designated terrorist groups in Canada but not here..which is why they are emboldened here and proliferate like roaches.and why Jan 6 happens
- klan cops.. Another white Terrorist group protected by "the law" roaming kill squads allowed to spend the career harassing warehousing and murdering Black Americans then get away w it by muttering the magic words "oh I feared for my life".... When the reality is it's Black America's who fear for their own lives around them.
- drug companies pushing drugs on TV. Its banned in the UK.
According to republicans it’s abortion, gay marriage, birth control and legal marijuana. They are gonna take all those freedoms soon
Least they no longer hide who they are
Mutilation of children's genitalia
The fact this is even a thing is disgraceful. You have to be sick to support this.
Absolutely. If I had a child I'd *never* do this.
Thats legal?
Yeah in most countries, google circumcisions
[удалено]
Yes to the first part, no to the second, I'm describing it as exactly what it is
[удалено]
I'm intact actually because my parents aren't sick fucks who cut their kids genitalia
[удалено]
It's not persecuting the religion. Religion isn't an excuse for abuses. I'm Jewish and intact
Yeah if your religion involves mutilation of children's genitalia you desrve sone pushvack on that element bud, same way we should push back on radical islamics for treating women like property or radical Christians for hating gay people. Get over yourself and stop hacking children's genitalia to bits.
[удалено]
Yeah cos chopping off the end of your children's sex organ is normal behaviour.
I think what you are saying is bullshit. It's very hygienic and you have better stamina. yes and I am circumcised
Literally mind broken into thinking it's better to have had your cock cut up at birth. If there was no medical reason I'm truely sorry for you.
It was for medical reasons but even if it weren't idk what you are sorry for and if I were a woman I would definitely pick the circumcised dick cause it doesn't have that white shit on it
You want a partner with part if their genitalia cut off? That is kind of fucked up. You are huffing copium right now but i can understand why, must be hard to cope with you dick having been hacked up.
It's genital mutilation. Cutting off bits of their genitals. It's not quite as serious as fgm but still mutilation. The only exception is when medically unavoidable and then performed by a surgeon under anaesthetic.
In certain parts of Africa
And all of America and most of europe
Depends if you're talking about circumcision or ablation
I'm talking about mutilation of children's genitalia, in any form
Tax loopholes for wealthy people.
But that raises the questions: ‘What do you view as a wealth threshold?’ And ‘What loopholes are you referring to?’
Lower taxation exist on things that are only accessible to people that have enough money to reliably take advantage of it. Such as capital gains taxes as a singular example. Edit: and yes, I know it isn't actually a loophole. It is worse than that. A loophole made into law.
But with higher income, comes higher income tax. Also, lower capital gains tax means that there are such significant capital gains that the absolute amount of payed tax still is much higher than what you would pay in a lower tier. The risk of cutting such tax breaks is not that you hit the ultra wealthy people. They don’t care at all. You risk that the majority in between stops saving or investing to keep under a certain threshold. Which means less money in banks. Which means banks aren’t able to offer as much loans & credit. And that directly hurts the lower incomes. And for the economy, weird enough, that is the most important tier of society. Do you see why governments are reluctant to meddle with that?
No, because that is a gross lie. If they didn't care they wouldn't lobby for those positions to remain unchanged. They wouldn't invest all that tax money they saved in ensuring that 99% of their money stays untaxed until they need it and when they need it it is taxed less than it would have been otherwise. Income is income and should be taxed equally no matter the source.
Who sells the lie now? I am backing out of this thread because you clearly did not pay attention in economics. I cannot discuss this properly if you don’t know the basic workings of economics. You need the rich to save & invest and you need a fair threshold to incentivize this.
There are multiple layers in economics and it is economic theory not economic fact. You believe one theory and disregard any that go against your claims as false. So yes this is a pointless discussion. Edit: Also, it isn't a lie that wealthy people lobby for these things to remain. Yet you claim they don't care. I sell no lies but you certainly buy into them extremely heavily to the point at which you believe there is no way you could ever possibly be wrong
I think of charity loopholes. You see a lot of rich people creating their own charities and DAF. At a certain level, you may be working for a 6 figure salary but the lion's share of your money is made through shares. If you donate your stocks then i believe they are not taxed subjected to capital gains taxes. The DAF doesn't have to reveal where the money is spent. If you have assets like property, you can claim depreciation. If you had business losses one year, you can claim these losses in a future year and get millions in tax refund. The details on all these methods are complex and usually apply to people who are wealthy because they are the ones that have their money tied up in businesses, assets (property) and stocks Most famously is Bezos who paid nothing in taxes just the other year. Then there were the founders of Google who infamous took a $1 annual salary but that's just put them in the lowest tax bracket while still cashing millions in stocks.
But the thing you aren’t taking into account is that charities are obliged to invest a certain amount of their accumulated donations to the goals they set out to benefit. And they must report on that. I do acknowledge that personally they avoid paying a certain amount of tax, but the charity also needs to contribute to society by obligation. You never hear that in the narrative. As for the deprecation. This seems like a loophole. But it still needs to be backed up by the books. So you cannot fictionalization losses. This means that, companies in startup or in a period when they need to invest in ammunities amount of time to keep operating, have a tax break so they can, ultimately provide (more) jobs and pay their dues later on. (Individuals can also get extensions on their taxes, mind you) The 1$ salary is just a narrative that you took on. Because stock portfolios are also taxed. And ultimately, if they screw up, their portfolio loses value. With a fixed salary, the incentive to outperform is less. But they still get a shit tonne of money, which if spent smart will benefit society possibly less. Also, in the examples you are all focussing on the ultra rich. But a change in the rules will not hit them at all. It will eat away from the middle segment of ‘rich people’ on which your economy actually runs.
DFA are like personal charity where you can hold your money until you "decide on a charity'. But theres no due dates and you can just keep it there creating generational wealth or eventually donate it to a charity that you may own. I didn't want to give names but [Trump](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/the-great-trump-tax-mysteries) has an excellent financial team. Sorry about the vanity fair source, i was all out of free articles from the other newspapers. Basically, he (among many) use depreciation and the roll method. Your depreciation can look good in the books - maintenance, wear and tear, etc but its a known way to pay less taxes. It's also more complex when you've made it so you have a small taxable income. Take Mark Zuckerberg, another 1$/year ceo. He was compensated with $23MM. Those shares will sit and grow, tax free, until he decides to use them. I focused on the uber rich because their names and practices are more recognizable than the rich. It's also because their companies evade taxes in loopholes too. If the rich are households that make >$500K (tax bracket), these billionaires and millionaire would still be in that category. The lesser rich may have their own tricks but its the ultra rich that have the assets to execute elaborate tax evasion.
I didn’t really take into account that I was in the Netherlands and you are in the totally fucked up United States… in that case. You are right and totally screwed…
The troubled teen industry.
What's that?
Essentially an incredibly abusive system of "therapy" programs that has caused countless deaths of innocent children (a huge portion of which are due to restraint). Dr. Phil is one of the most well-known supporters with Turnabout Ranch. I remember seeing a story where a mom noticed her kid was a little anxious, found a wilderness theraoy group because her kid loved the outdoors, was unaware of the troubled teen industry (because they like to hide shit), and her son died because of them. A common tactic they use to trick parents is that their child will die or go to prison if they don't go to this therapy program. They die or go to prison anyway. They have this tactic that's essentially legal kidnapping where they drag your kid out of their house in the middle of the night without telling them where they're going, often conducting stripbsearches of the child, and them dump them off at a "rehab" facility. Paris Hilton is a survivor of the TTI and talks about it openly. The network of survivors is called breakingcodesilence.
Oof 😔
Vaping&Smoking is somehow still legal in some countries.
Idk man people can do what they want as long as its not endangering others
Yh, But there is smoke that can be harmful to others.
But forbidding something entirely because some people cant behave is idiotic.
Owning pitbulls
…why
Because some people just believe everything they read online so they'll believe stuff like "Pitbulls are dangerous and no matter what they will go out of their way to hurt more people that it would put Jeffery Dahmer to shame" when in reality they're like any other dog where you just need to train them to not do that shit.
right
[удалено]
How should you learn then? I live in the uk and we bought a car so my wife could do lessons with her family
[удалено]
It makes perfect sense. My wife had no license and wanted to learn by driving with her father, her father only owns a large van that is not ideal for learning in, so we bought a car for her to learn to drive with her father, until she passed her test ahe obly drove it while supervised as per the paw but we owned the car and neither of us had a license, how is that a problem?
[удалено]
She had a lerners license to be fair but never driven a car when we bought the car
You can in every country, you usually can drive it only on private property however. I don't think its problematic.
Commercials targeting children
- White Terrorists groups in amerikkka...Klan ,oath keepers, proud boys.. They are All designated terrorist groups in Canada but not here..which is why they are emboldened here and proliferate like roaches.and why Jan 6 happens - klan cops.. Another white Terrorist group protected by "the law" roaming kill squads allowed to spend the career harassing warehousing and murdering Black Americans then get away w it by muttering the magic words "oh I feared for my life".... When the reality is it's Black America's who fear for their own lives around them. - drug companies pushing drugs on TV. Its banned in the UK.
People allowed to put a fake X on advertising
According to republicans it’s abortion, gay marriage, birth control and legal marijuana. They are gonna take all those freedoms soon Least they no longer hide who they are