Nah. Employer gifts are income according to the IRS. If they reported the donation as income on your W-2, yes, you could deduct that, but that's not what they'd do. They'd just not report it on your W-2, so that you don't have to deduct anything. Otherwise, people who don't itemize would get completely screwed over. https://www.shrm.org/resources...
If alphabet gifts to the employees, that gift is taxable income, meaning the employee pays the tax. If they give you as an employee a gift and you donate it to charity, it stops being taxable income, meaning you are able to deduct that reported value from you taxable income and potentially be refunded as a result. If they donate in your name, that means that the additional taxable income isn't reported for you, so there's nothing to deduct.
The $14,000 gift limit explicitly does not apply to employers giving gifts to employees. When an employer gives a gift to an employee, it is considered a fringe-benefit, and the value of it must be reported as taxable income. If Alphabet were to use trickery like putting stuff in other people's names, when giving significant gifts to 70,000 employees, they would get caught pretty easily.
You are mistaken. The $14,000 gift exclusion is for gifts from friends and family. When an employer gives you a gift, unless it is something so tiny that it isn't practical to account for it (known as de minimis), its value is supposed to be reported as income. Now what constitutes that tiny amount is open ended, but if it's anything worth more than $50, the IRS would probably not be cool with it going unreported if it were to find out.
"NLP" in this context is Natural Language Processing. Not to be confused with "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" which is discredited quack self-help junk. For a moment there, I was very confused as to how those guys would be involved.
I think this trend also has to do with where these articles are getting their numbers. From what I'm seeing, the ERA might not get a full report on all digital download sales from the UK; while they probably are privy to nearly all vinyl sales.
One is Analog microphones + digital effects & synths -> digital recording -> analog conversion through speakers which vibrates your ear.
The other is Analog microphones + digital effects & synths -> digital recording -> analog recording -> conversion to voltages which are amplified -> conversion to speakers which move your ears
Honestly, as long as the digital sample rate is high enough (these days, it always is) and you listen to the record on a quality hi-fi, and you take care of your records, then you aren't losing anything, except convenience. But yeah, you aren't really gaining anything either, unless you count the ability to do record-scratching (which can also be done digitally) and being more forced to listen to a whole side of a record before flipping it or changing records, instead of the modern ease of the "next track" button.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but it's not like producers routinely do an entirely separate mixdown for vinyl when they release modern stuff in multiple-formats. They make one mix, and if causes the needle to skip over, they limit the entire track on the vinyl until it doesn't. The ratio between the amount of quiet portions and loud portions (dynamic range) doesn't change, it's just that the overall amplitude is reduced. Absolutely nothing prevents producers from making CDs with high dynamic range. Compressing the dynamics in order to up the loudness was done on CDs because they could, and because they were finding it helped sell more albums when you had more loudness to make you stand out over the competition.
By all means, go buy an original vinyl album in good condition instead of a "Remastered anniversary edition", where, yeah, they tend to compress the mix and amplify the result. Or go buy a vinyl album because you are a DJ who actually knows how to spin vinyl. Or shit, go buy vinyl because you're nostalgic for the way things used to be, if that's what you're in to. But don't buy vinyl because you think it's gonna sound better than digital. That is, unless you group together the hiss of a low-quality hi-fi setup, and the clicks and pops from mishandling an record over time somehow improve the sound. And even if you do want that, There's an App for That.
WHAT, DID THE PHONE INDUSTRY GET CURSED BY A SHITTY STEPHEN KING NOVEL? I haven't wished my phone was thinner for a decade now. I haven't given a pair of fetted dingos kidneys how thin my phone is and I've never met anyone who has. The only allowable excuse for this is if the phone is able to come with a free Bluetooth reciever while selling them together at a lower full-retail-price than the S7.
I own an S5, and was considering getting an S8, but unless someone can give me a better reason than "thinner, more battery room!" then I'll gladly wait for someone else to come along and eat Samsung's lunch.
And bleeding everyone is what the big entertainment industry is forced to do to stay afloat, because more and more people get their entertainment from their peers on YouTube.
It's gonna be a hairy couple of years before the business models work themselves out and everyone finds a happy niche. Meanwhile, I'm off to pitch a gritty remake of...let's go with, uh, Jimmy Olsen as Elastic Lad.
Right, so their plan is to get people to subscribe and stay subscribed because they're addicted to Netflix' original content. They don't have to share profits on those, so, as long as they continue to be well-regarded, they pretty much have no incentive to work out deals with the movie studios. If they haven't already, they're gonna need to start working out year-long subscription discounts, or else, if this trend continues, people might only subscribe during months when their favorite series is released, bingewatch it, and unsubscribe the rest of the year. Granted, they're also banking on people being too lazy to bother with this.
If you just throw in a few extra steps, you can use a technique called "lost PLA" where you build investment out of plaster or ceramic around a 3D printed part, and then burn it out, making a mold, where you can cast most metals into it. But this requires acquiring a foundry-furnace, an electric kiln, potentially a specialty vacuum chamber, an outside space to set this stuff up, a spare weekend to do all this stuff, and a grinding station to clean up the casting. And unlike the lost-wax process, if you want a 2nd copy for whatever reason, you gotta do a whole additional print. In lost wax, you've got a silicone mold, so you just pour hot wax into that and you're ready for another try pretty quick.
The ruling says that yes, the constitution does grant that power to the courts. The ruling merely confirmed it because it wasn't explicit. You can still derive that power by applying logic to a combination of statements that the constitution explicitly makes.
Seriously, this aspect is not a controversial issue. This is covered in high school level constitution courses.
All federal judges are given the implied power of Judicial Review over executive actions, and more specifically presidential actions. This was established in Little v. Barreme in 1804; nearly 60 years before Lincoln's action.
Not the current supreme court, just the misinformed court of the time. The ruling from Korematsu v US only hasn't been overturned because it hasn't been cited as precedent lately. The conviction in question was overturned because the government was knowingly submitting false information.
I thought about excluding Antarctica, but nah, I want at least the occasional data-dump there too. Antarctica stands a chance of surviving a few disasters that other continents might not.
I responded to this in greater detail in other earlier comments, but, this doesn't say that the president has this power all to himself. At the time, the Chief Justice, acting as a Circuit Court Judge, ruled that it was unconstitutional for the president to suspend the writ without approval from congress. Lincoln ignored this ruling entirely, and continued to lock people up, doing anything he felt necessary to keep from losing Maryland to the South.
Yes, from then on, that's mostly fine (he was probably a bit over-broad in using this power, which is a dick-move, but a legal dick-move). But the initial suspension that I'm talking about was 2 years before this. A similar act gave President Grant the same ability to suspend the writ during the reconstruction period, which he also used, and that's also OK.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. Employer gifts are income according to the IRS. If they reported the donation as income on your W-2, yes, you could deduct that, but that's not what they'd do. They'd just not report it on your W-2, so that you don't have to deduct anything. Otherwise, people who don't itemize would get completely screwed over. https://www.shrm.org/resources...
If alphabet gifts to the employees, that gift is taxable income, meaning the employee pays the tax. If they give you as an employee a gift and you donate it to charity, it stops being taxable income, meaning you are able to deduct that reported value from you taxable income and potentially be refunded as a result. If they donate in your name, that means that the additional taxable income isn't reported for you, so there's nothing to deduct.
The $14,000 gift limit explicitly does not apply to employers giving gifts to employees. When an employer gives a gift to an employee, it is considered a fringe-benefit, and the value of it must be reported as taxable income. If Alphabet were to use trickery like putting stuff in other people's names, when giving significant gifts to 70,000 employees, they would get caught pretty easily.
You are mistaken. The $14,000 gift exclusion is for gifts from friends and family. When an employer gives you a gift, unless it is something so tiny that it isn't practical to account for it (known as de minimis), its value is supposed to be reported as income. Now what constitutes that tiny amount is open ended, but if it's anything worth more than $50, the IRS would probably not be cool with it going unreported if it were to find out.
The STATE Georgia, not the COUNTRY.
"NLP" in this context is Natural Language Processing. Not to be confused with "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" which is discredited quack self-help junk. For a moment there, I was very confused as to how those guys would be involved.
I think this trend also has to do with where these articles are getting their numbers. From what I'm seeing, the ERA might not get a full report on all digital download sales from the UK; while they probably are privy to nearly all vinyl sales.
You should've stuck with the old 78s, all they required was a fresh cactus needle.
No, no, I'm sorry this article is about tobacconists.
The other is Analog microphones + digital effects & synths -> digital recording -> analog recording -> conversion to voltages which are amplified -> conversion to speakers which move your ears
Honestly, as long as the digital sample rate is high enough (these days, it always is) and you listen to the record on a quality hi-fi, and you take care of your records, then you aren't losing anything, except convenience. But yeah, you aren't really gaining anything either, unless you count the ability to do record-scratching (which can also be done digitally) and being more forced to listen to a whole side of a record before flipping it or changing records, instead of the modern ease of the "next track" button.
By all means, go buy an original vinyl album in good condition instead of a "Remastered anniversary edition", where, yeah, they tend to compress the mix and amplify the result. Or go buy a vinyl album because you are a DJ who actually knows how to spin vinyl. Or shit, go buy vinyl because you're nostalgic for the way things used to be, if that's what you're in to. But don't buy vinyl because you think it's gonna sound better than digital. That is, unless you group together the hiss of a low-quality hi-fi setup, and the clicks and pops from mishandling an record over time somehow improve the sound. And even if you do want that, There's an App for That.
I own an S5, and was considering getting an S8, but unless someone can give me a better reason than "thinner, more battery room!" then I'll gladly wait for someone else to come along and eat Samsung's lunch.
It's gonna be a hairy couple of years before the business models work themselves out and everyone finds a happy niche. Meanwhile, I'm off to pitch a gritty remake of...let's go with, uh, Jimmy Olsen as Elastic Lad.
Right, so their plan is to get people to subscribe and stay subscribed because they're addicted to Netflix' original content. They don't have to share profits on those, so, as long as they continue to be well-regarded, they pretty much have no incentive to work out deals with the movie studios. If they haven't already, they're gonna need to start working out year-long subscription discounts, or else, if this trend continues, people might only subscribe during months when their favorite series is released, bingewatch it, and unsubscribe the rest of the year. Granted, they're also banking on people being too lazy to bother with this.
If you just throw in a few extra steps, you can use a technique called "lost PLA" where you build investment out of plaster or ceramic around a 3D printed part, and then burn it out, making a mold, where you can cast most metals into it. But this requires acquiring a foundry-furnace, an electric kiln, potentially a specialty vacuum chamber, an outside space to set this stuff up, a spare weekend to do all this stuff, and a grinding station to clean up the casting. And unlike the lost-wax process, if you want a 2nd copy for whatever reason, you gotta do a whole additional print. In lost wax, you've got a silicone mold, so you just pour hot wax into that and you're ready for another try pretty quick.
News articles get more clicks when they mention Trump. (I read the article, and I honestly think that could be reason).
We live in a weird future.
Seriously, this aspect is not a controversial issue. This is covered in high school level constitution courses.
All federal judges are given the implied power of Judicial Review over executive actions, and more specifically presidential actions. This was established in Little v. Barreme in 1804; nearly 60 years before Lincoln's action.
God, you sound just like my jerk-DAD. I should be able to listen to my music at whatever volume I want, jeez.
That's...extremely rational. What are you doing hanging around on modern Slashdot?
Not the current supreme court, just the misinformed court of the time. The ruling from Korematsu v US only hasn't been overturned because it hasn't been cited as precedent lately. The conviction in question was overturned because the government was knowingly submitting false information.
I thought about excluding Antarctica, but nah, I want at least the occasional data-dump there too. Antarctica stands a chance of surviving a few disasters that other continents might not.
Then we wrote our State Song about the "Despot".
Yes, from then on, that's mostly fine (he was probably a bit over-broad in using this power, which is a dick-move, but a legal dick-move). But the initial suspension that I'm talking about was 2 years before this. A similar act gave President Grant the same ability to suspend the writ during the reconstruction period, which he also used, and that's also OK.