Aceticon

Yeah, but they already live abroad because they can (given how the Law is made, they can use it to avoid existing taxes) and they prefer the quality of life there.

My point is that those who don't do it already, are were they are still rather than living in Monaco to avoid existing taxation because they would rather live there than in Monaco, so their threats of leaving if taxes go up are seldom true. Further, if taxation is based on asset ownership and asset location it doesn't mater were those individuals live, it maters were their assets are: whether they live in Monaco or not, they'll be paying the same for, say, realestate they own in the UK, since that's something they can't take it with them, so they'll have to divest from those assets by which point they won't be profiting from the conditions in the UK that make those assets be so profitable for them.

Situations like Lewis Hamilton's or Taylor Swift's - people who makes their money mainly from their own work, though they also ride legal weaknesses that let them avoid being taxed on were they actually operate and/or sales were the sale happens (in this case by not paying tax were they play concerts or do races) - are actually unusual as high net worth individuals: most of the very wealthy make their money from the income of asset ownership, and assets have a physical location (even IP), at the very least some kind of national registar somewhere that certifies that they own those assets, so governments that genuinelly want to tax most of the rich who are not paying fairly into the common pot were they derive their gains (i.e. at the very least by making those assets so profitable to own) just have to tax them via the assets rather than via residence.

On the people side, the ones who would do it are already doing it: for example rich people who go live in Monaco 6 months a year to have residence there. The one's who aren't doing it and simply bitch and moan about it seldom tend to start doing it because they prefer the lifestyle of being were they are rather than the "live in your yacht of the coast of Monaco".

As for businesses, they only ever do it when they can still keep operating with the same advantages in their original markets whilst paying all taxes elsewhere that is cheaper. In regimes were taxation isn't actually based on "place of sale" but instead on HQ location, the move their HQs to reduce the tax they pay but they don't actually move their businesses. Such moves indicate that tax legislation is actually not taxing the doing business (i.e. their actual selling) but something else and thus need fixing.

It's incredibly rare for a business to actually stop selling altogether in a country merely for tax reasons - instead what you see is them trying to use accounting loopholes to move their tax residence elsewhere.

Who says that's not her true opinion?

She did very openly get close to the Cheney familiy during her presidential campaign, so she might very well think that according to her own values he had done nothing wrong.

It seems to me that one of the core problems of the Democrat Party leadership which has led to their candidate being defeated once again by none other than Donald "Sex Offender" Trump, is exactly that their values are pretty much compatible with Cheney's.

But, but, but ... no matter the politics of their candidate clicking their heels and saying the magic words "vote us to stop the other guy" has always worked as their main electoral strategy.

Obviously with such a magical and infallible electoral strategy, this election loss can only be explained by there being something wrong with the voters themselves as that strategy makes the quality and politics of the candidate be irrelevant!

IMHO, most people's time usage perception tends to be heavilly skewed toward weighing higher the time taken in the main task - say, creating the code of a program - rather than the secondary (but, none the less, required before completion) tasks like fixing the code.

Notice how so many coders won't do the proper level of analysis and preparation before actually starting coding - they want to feel like they're "doing the work" which for them is the coding part, whilst the analysis doesn't feel like "doing the work" for a dev, so they prematurelly dive into coding and end up screwed with things like going down a non-viable implementation route or missing in the implementation some important requirement detail with huge implications on the rest that would have been detected during analysis.

(I also think that's the reason why even without AI people will do stupid "time savers" in the main task like using short variable names that then screw them in secondary tasks like bug-fixing or adding new requirements to the program later because it makes it far harder to figure out what the code is doing)

AI speeds up what people feel is the main task - creating the code - but that's de facto more than offset by time lost on supposedly secondary work that doesn't feel as much as "doing the work" so doesn't get counted the same.

This is why when it actually gets measured independently and properly by people who aren't just trusting their own feeling of "how long did it took" (or people who, thanks to experience, actually do properly measure the total time taken including in support activities, rather than just trusting their own subjective perception) it turns out that, at least in software development, AI actually slightly reduces productivity.

Doesn't Windows 11 in practice require even more memory than Windows 10 to operate with decent performance?

Meanwhile my Linux gaming PC seems to actually use less memory than back when it was a Windows machine.

Look at the UK and what was done there when Corbyn - a real deal leftie - was elected leader of the Labour party (which hadn't be left of center for decades until then).

Prepare for the establishments Democrats to cooperate with Republicans and pretty much the entirety of the Press including the "progressive" newspapes to slander him relentlessly.

In Britain they kept on claiming that Corbyn and Labour under Corbyn were "anti-semitic", but nowadays after what Israel has done and how that accusation was so abused by those genociders and their supporters to excuse mass murdering of children, I doubt that strategy would work, even in the US (though notice that some are still half-hearthedly trying it with talk about how Jewish New Yorkers should be afraid).

Just beware: in the UK once they managed to kick out Corbyn the neoliberal faction took over Labour again, did a purge of any leftwing members of the party and now - only thanks to their First Past The Post system - are in government and doing things like convicting people to jail for participating in demonstrations, most notably by declaring of the peaceful protesting groups Palestine Action as a "Terrorist Organisation" and then arresting old ladies for demonstrating against the Gaza Genocide by supporting it, though they're doing a lot more than that since they've passed more generic "public nuisance" legislation to de facto make demonstrations illegal.

The neoliberals that infiltrated the supposedly leftwing mainstream parties in power duopoly "Democracies", when push comes to shove are little more than Fascists with fancy suits, smooth talk and extra varnish.

Same here.

I wasn't going to keep on paying through my taxes the pensions of the kind of people who detested me simply because of where I was born (the proportion of Leave votes was much higher amongst older Britons).

Also a hard-nosed analysis of the whole thing yielded the conclusion that Brexit would significantly accelerate the downwards spiral of the UK.

It's thanks to such hard-noses analisys that most of my savings were protected from being hit by the fall in the British Pound when the Referendum vote yielded a Leave as result and in the subsequent years - I "smelled the wind" even before the vote and moved most of my money and assets out of the UK and the Pound in preparation for a "Leave" result.

Decoupling from the UK, including leaving the country, were some of my best decisions ever, as I keep getting reminded periodically everytime there are news of the UK government doing yet another highly authoritarian action (I don't even follow their Economy anymore)

Mate, well-off people are were they are because they like living there and operate their businesses were they do because that's were they make money - they're not going to sacrifice their quality of life and profits merelly because they disagree with an elected politician.

Sure, they'll say they will because saying it literally costs them nothing, but they won't actually do it unless they're sure they will be better off by acting thus.

Only those who aren't high net worth individuals have to face themselves the difficulties of relocating, the well-off just pay somebody to deal with the headaches for them, so they never had any barrier to leaving other than that life won't be as good for them or doing business won't be as profitable elsewhere.

It's not by chance that the free market "paradise" free of government interference and taxes called "Somalia" hasn't attracted any high net worth individuals.

A hard-nosed business-style analysis yields the simple conclusion that such talkie-talkie only has upsides for them. Because doing it costs nothing:

• If it yields results, they gain from it.
• If it does not yield results they're no worse of than if they hadn't said anything.

So, yeah, they'll say whatever when they can only gain from it and at worst lose nothing at all from saying it.

Such kind of discourse should be treated as "lies until proven otherwise".

"Somehow" Brasil made it happen, but the US did not.

It's almost like the most corrupt and backwards of those nations is the self-proclaimed "leader of the free world".

This is similar to how rich people will threathen to leave a country if taxes for them go up yet never do, because they live were they live and do business were they do business because of how good for them it is to live there and how much more profitable it is to do business were people are more prosperous and the Law actually works.

Turns out that such people want the quality of life they get living were they are and the juicy profits from operating their businesses there, whilst not paying for what makes it all possible themselves and thus be parasites on the rest, is just the cherry on top: they have no problem in saying whatever it takes - because talkie-talkie costs them nothing - to keep on getting that quality of life and profits whilst somebody else pays for the conditions that make it possible, what they're not fine with is the actually doing what they say they will do because if they do act as they threathen, it will cost them said quality of life and profits.

Unsurprisingly (for those who question things a bit further and don't just accept at face value the theatrics of society's top parasites) that "Paradise" free of "government oppression" called Somalia has failed to attract any of those those who claim they will leave the place were they live and do business when society elects somebody who will make them pay their fair share for that quality of life they so enjoy.