triceratops
triceratops on Hacker News
A payment plan for a phone says things
> If the solution is invasive government regulation, the answer will always be no
The answer is already "no" without regulation. Might as well regulate.
What other options are there? Mind-control?
Why are these rounds of community consultation allowed? Surely legislatures ought to be able to pre-empt them.
Go religious. "Energy from heaven." or "The devil lives underground."
To be fair nuclear is as expensive as it is mostly because of radioactivity. There'd be no need for all the heavy concrete, armed guards, and spent fuel disposal if the materials were innocuous.
Surely this is satire. The reference to the screwdriver is what convinced me it is.
Is there a study that pinpoints which nuclear regulations are unnecessary and how much they add to the LCoE of a nuke plant?
The voter base keeps voting for the crooks though.
I agree with banning online betting.
If you want to add friction, just make sports betting IRL.
Also ban any gambling advertising.
If you choose to hang on you have to work for 6 months.
> the expectations to maximize shareholder returns
There is no legal requirement to do so. So they can simply set the expectation upfront that they won't do it.
> We all have that already, it's called smartphone sadly.
That's what the person you responded to was saying.
Sure ok. But to the true pope and his followers, the antipope is definitely evil and going to hell. It's a matter of perspective.
As soon as I personally attained a modicum of financial security I automatically started giving fewer fucks about things than I used to. I assume the number of fucks given (about people, ideas, values) asymptotically approaches zero as your wealth increases. Or at least it does if you don't work at it.
> There will almost never be a government that does this because the incentives are not there.
A government that gets elected by cutting income taxes? You're right you aren't cut out for politics.
"Beseech the god machine that it may shower upon you its tokenous beneficence."
The god machine can prompt itself. Just go "Write me a prompt to <whatever>. Ask me as many clarifying questions as needed.". It is not a differentiator.
Deep domain knowledge and pattern matching that allows you to quickly verify outputs might be a differentiator. Maybe. But you might end up the bottleneck if you verify everything.
So vote for a government that will do it. Or run for office yourself.
A wealth tax with a narrower focus.
Who said "punish"? I thought "the sentiment" was "tax the rich because they can afford it".
Isn't that what you said? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50223139 You didn't say anything about punishment.
I agree taxes are to pay for stuff. Taxing people with money makes the most sense.
That's the sentiment behind
every tax. Poor people don't pay most taxes (other than sales and payroll). Only middle-class and rich people do.
And it's a logical motivator, not an emotional one as you state. You can't take money from people who don't have money.
The feline analogy is a bit tortured. Explain why a tax on a house isn't the same as a tax on stock.
Most homeowners' biggest asset is their house. It is an illiquid asset. They pay an annual tax on its value.
That's a wealth tax by another name.
A transaction tax is not the same as a wealth tax.
Property taxes, paid by every single homeowner, are a wealth tax. The difference is that for most homeowners, their house is their most valuable asset. Not the case for billionaires.
A property tax is a wealth tax. You're already paying a wealth tax.
Or do both - tax billionaires and spend smarter - to reduce income taxes. Think how great that would be.
I was wrong about how much he's allowed to sell.
On the other hand, once the non-voting shares exist, he's going to sell them some day.
Your SEC link says the exact same thing.
"The board establishes a new Class C share type with no votes. It also announces a one-time dividend of a Class C share for each Class A and B share outstanding".
Please tell me what I got wrong.
I thought the point was to raise tax revenue from the people whose wealth increased the most.