andrewducker (
andrewducker) wrote2023-08-16 12:00 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Interesting Links for 16-08-2023
- 1. The 16 brutal restrictions imposed on women in Afghanistan during two years of the Taliban
- (tags:taliban afghanistan women rights )
- 2. 'We want a second baby, but can't afford one': The rise of Britain's one-child families
- (tags:children money uk )
- 3. Edinburgh is new Covid hotspot as active cases double during Festival Fringe
- (tags:pandemic edinburgh festival fringe )
- 4. Positive Association between Altitude and Suicide across the USA
- (tags:usa suicide oxygen )
- 5. Council Tax Reform is Necessary — and so is Understanding
- (tags:Scotland politics tax )
- 6. Brains of teenage smokers may be different than non-smokers
- (tags:cigarettes neuroscience brain teenagers )
- 7. Google DeepMind's game-playing AI just found another way to make code faster
- (tags:ai coding software )
Re: #5
Re: #5
But I think that I fundamentally (emotionally, see later) object to tax on normal-level personal assets and would instead favour vastly increased taxes on income. I appreciate the huge problem that the rich will always abuse any such system.
The emotional basis of this is ---- that I feel it ought to be possible stop bloody worrying about money at some point and just live, from what you already earned. Especially if this is more than the average for decades. It should be possible. That I have already paid way more taxes than normal should count for something. Dont say investment plans / pensions - they are also a) effort and work over many years and often cant be adjusted easily on the fly when rules change and b) NOT predictable - and ones lifespan certainly is not. if I live to 100 (like members of my family have already done) then that is literally unplannable for, and impossible to make enough "investment", regardless of what in.
sorry for brain dump. you can tell it bugs me.