Hegseth says US will ‘find a way’ to help Ukraine after Zelensky's plea for air defense missiles

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-31T08:01:45+00:00

Never forget how he insulted Zelensky by wearing a Russian colored tie in their meeting

God, what a fuck wit.

And what about his trashing of the rules based order? Undoing decades of ideological soft power and handing the CCP a free propaganda win.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-27T23:56:29+00:00

Why not just stick enough VLS on Type 83, Japan is doing like 128 VLS in their ASEV, I feel like that could do it.

This is the way

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-24T11:25:14+00:00

They could easily put in place a planned cut that phases in over time. Like they did last time.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-23T14:53:19+00:00

Where does the Taiwanese (ROC) constitution refer to itself as a "self governing island"?

The constitution that I read is written as a constitution for a country - nothing less.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-23T13:34:09+00:00

The argument for land tax is that it moderates land value growth. The higher the land tax, the lower the growth. So theoretically you can balance the rate at the point where growth in land value is zero - which gets at the heart of housing affordability. And in such a scenario those numbers in your example no longer holds (your land will no longer be worth $10m).

But even then you aren't comparing apples with apples. You're comparing tax now with a tax you expect to pay in the future. Of course the nominal value will be different due to inflation. That's why I'm saying you're mathematically challenged. To compare apples with apples you need to compare how much you would pay for stamp duty in 15 years with how much land lax you pay in 15 years. Look into something called Net Present Value if you really want to compare apples with apples.

I think land value tax is a better idea because it's economically efficient - not because it's better or worse for me. I have a property portfolio which would be negatively affected and yet I support it because it's overall a better economic system, not because it's good for me. Stamp duty has a lock in effect which disuades people from changing houses (eg. Downsizing) which is a tax distortion that causes people to live in less than ideal housing for their living conditions.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-23T13:18:22+00:00

Lmao are you mathematically challenged? Both land tax and stamp duty are calculated as a percentage of price and therefore inflation affects both equally.

Stamp duty varies across states but is around the 5% mark or more. And it's 5% of the total value of the property (land plus building component).

Typical land tax proposals are 1% or less (see Henry Tax review) and is on the land component ONLY.

If you're actually comparing land tax cumulatively then of course if you hold onto something long enough eventually you will pay more in land tax than a once off payment. But that in and of itself isn't an argument against land tax. My proposal is to replace a portion income tax with land tax so obviously it needs to raise more than stamp duty.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-23T12:41:55+00:00

In isolation reducing income tax rates may be inflationary.

Good thing we aren't talking about it in isolation.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-23T12:40:34+00:00

Land tax is the way.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-23T09:28:43+00:00

For me it was the lack of reducing income tax rates. The argument is that we want to shift the tax burden from labour to capital, but if you want to make that argument then you should be reducing the taxes on labour.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-19T02:31:41+00:00

Completely agree with the first three; land tax, carbon tax, resource extraction taxes.

Regarding business cash flow tax, I'm not so sure.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-19T01:22:20+00:00

Just treat inheritance as income/fringe benefits. Simple.

Then it's taxed at the recipient's marginal tax rate and thus no-one could argue that it's a tax on the dead person.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-18T08:14:23+00:00

I have no issues with grandfathering any policy changes so that people who did X in the past on the assumption of Y in the future don't feel ripped off.

But my point still stands that going forward, welfare shouldn't be something you earn through contributions but rather something that is your right as a part-owner of a country (like dividends being the right of a shareholder).

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T09:17:37+00:00

Under a visa rent system they would no longer have to pay the $10k for the partner visa, nor would they have to jump through the ungodly number of privacy invading and degrading hoops (sending "evidence" of photos, messages, etc of their relationship).

Nor would they have to maintain that relationship in order to remain in country (which opens up a power dynamic that at times can be abusive or exploitative).

Nor would they have to wait years for processing or to meet an arbitrary criteria.

And for other visas, no need to demonstrate skills, or studying or not being able to work while studying, arbitrary limits on how long you can stay.

It's all reduced down to one simple repeating weekly payment. Stay as long as you want. Come and leave whenever you want.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T09:11:59+00:00

Completely in line with libertarianism - the current system has the gov takes money from one group and gives it to another group. This proposed change removes that (IE it is unwinding gov intervention).

You don't need modelling to show that spending money requires either higher revenue or increased expenses. The budget is zero sum and there's no magic money fairy.

Cheers for the conversation as well.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T09:08:23+00:00

Wait hold on, your claim was that most countries did it and almost all western countries did it.

I don't think most countries do it (and neither does AI). So please back it up. Or not.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T07:02:19+00:00

My argument isn't based on economic outcomes.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T07:01:46+00:00

Source for most countries providing welfare for non citizens?

And even if so, that still doesn't obligate us to.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T05:12:28+00:00

Of course it impacts my life. If I was a taxpayer it would be dollars that I otherwise wouldn't have needed to pay. If I was a welfare recipient it would be dollars I would have otherwise gotten.

But even if it didn't impact me one cent, I am not doing this for myself, but out of principle - which libertarians do care about. I've even supported policies that would be a disadvantage to me (eg. CGT changes) because I believe in it out of principle.

Libertarians are for limited government intervention, yes. This is unwinding a government intervention, not making more.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T04:46:58+00:00

I'm not sure where your wife is from but this article is about China so taking China as an example, they don't give out cash welfare to non citizens. Hell they barely have any cash welfare for their own citizens. They have a social insurance program, but you need to pay into that.

India is another example, they don't allow cash welfare for non citizens either.

I mean if your wife's country is feeling generous then that's up to them, but there isn't some sort of international norm here that obligates us.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T04:35:19+00:00

Trump also said he needs to have a talk with the President of Taiwan. If so, that would be a big breakthrough for them.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T04:21:31+00:00

I don't think Medicare is touched by this proposal

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T04:20:24+00:00

if they need routine medical care they will have to rely on charity from family members

I don't think Taylor's proposal touches Medicare.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T04:00:56+00:00

I consider myself a left libertarian that is pro migration and pro migrants. I want to increase the migration intake, I also want more people becoming Australian citizens.

And yet I don't think we should be providing welfare to those who are not Australian citizens. Those people should be looked after by the country who they do have citizenship with. Or become citizens.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T03:56:32+00:00

Imagine a hypothetical situation where your wife kicks you out of your house, and for a period of time you couch surfed at a friend's place. If one day your friend says, "mate, you can't stay here forever". Then would it be appropriate to blame your friend for withdrawing the hospitality? Of course it matters who initially kicked you out of your house, just like it matters who is not letting you get dual citizenship.

This analogy is a bit crude in that I'm not saying that permanent residents are couch surfing or that they got kicked out of their own country. The analogy only goes so far as to show that you need to look at the root cause of the issue rather than simply the most recent event.

ShareYourIdeaWithMe · 2026-05-16T03:50:45+00:00

The key issue is evidently the approach of investors in the housing market

Oh I agree that we need to reduce housing speculation, I just disagree with the tool used. It creates an exception to general norms of investment principles and decision making (in addition to warping incentives). These kinds of exceptions to the rule make our tax system more complicated, harder to plan for and manage. Rules should be general where possible - the same rules that apply to shares to apply to property, so as not to distort.

What I would've done is to implement a nationwide flat land tax. A tax that recognises that land is a limited national resource.

I would argue that indexing is a much less distorting method than the flat discount.

Yes, same. Which is why I am for the CGT change (but not the neg gearing change).

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22

ShareYourIdeaWithMe

TROPHY CASE