Tamo240

This 100%, too many musk fanboys don't understand how much he is actually hindering innovation.

Even at SpaceX they make more progress when he isn't involved.

Owning that much of a company that is valued that highly is still damaging to society, even if it isn't liquid cash. Even putting aside their ability to take out loans with the shares as collateral, if the company is really worth that much it should be owned by a larger number of people with each taking a reasonably sized share to ensure that decisions are not made selfishly.

Taxing unrealised gains also hurt working class people dabbling in the stock market to try and improve their circumstance. IMO once you reach a net worth of $1B you get a pat on the back that you won captalism, and a 200% tax rate on anything beyond that to force you to give it up. No one person should own and control so much of a company if it truely has so much value, divide it among those that created the value i.e. the employees.

At least an expensive car is usually a better product though, so many of these t-shirts are simply cheap cotton but the price is $$$$ because the logo of a company that also makes actually expensive products is on it.

Makes sense, but to me going from 1.5% to 1.3% on a prediction for 3 years in the future seems like a pretty insignificant difference, especially since it will probably change between now and then.

£22B for the NHS is the best news I've heard in a while, and even then it is only barely keeping it in line with previous investment as a % of GDP. This investment is sorely needed so if taxes have to go up to pay for it they have to go up. If we want growth rejoin the EU and then our taxes can come down again, but none of the major parties are willing to have that conversation.

One of Harris and Trump is going to be the president. Sorry but that is the reality, the time for getting a better candidate has passed.

It is time to pick which one you want. If you don't vote you don't care so you accept either outcome.

Voting is not and should not be wholly endorsing the person, but securing the best outcome from the options. You want better options then go into politics yourself.

I agree with every point you made, and obviously this is better than having no cap at all, but this is exactly what makes the argument a false dichotomy, which the government is doing more than you were. Any positives are only relative to the single invented alternative, not any of the better solutions.

The simple fact is that public services like public transport, the NHS, postal service etc should not need to be profitable. They should never be expected to support themselves financially and should be funded by taxation on those who can most afford, not increasing the cost for use by those that most require its services.

Public services will continue to crack and fail until we have a government that understands this.

Thanks mate, edited

I get your frustration, but it is really important to keep spelling it out. I find it very frustrating to be on the receiving and of lines like I'm tired of explaining it to you people when I am earnestly engaging in a conversation for the first time, so I think it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt that maybe they really don't know, especially on forums where people other than those commenting will read it also.

Because Harris is open to ceasefire pressure and Trump want's Israel to 'Finish the job'.

One's hands aren't morally clean if you don't vote and Trump wins. Not voting is functionally equivalent to voting for whoever wins, and if he does win with a low turnout then those who didn't vote are responsible for whatever happens.

They could have renewed it at £2 and still increased the funding without taking it from people who rely on public transport.

No false dichotomies please.

The cap has been increased by ~~150~~ 50% from £2 to £3.

Please under no circumstances do trains.

You seem to be in the camp of believing the hype. See this write up of an apple paper detailing how adding simple statements that should not impact the answer to the question severely disrupts many of the top model's abilities.

In Bloom's taxonomy of the 6 stages of higher level thinking I would say they enter the second stage of 'understanding' only in a small number of contexts, but we give them so much credit because as a society our supposed intelligence tests for people have always been more like memory tests.