It isn't an empirical problem, it is an epistemological problem.
(We can draw some conclusions about what we think is probable, but we actually can't rule out, say, that the world is made out of Unicorns that like to be tickled on the horn)
"Hilarious boondoggle ends. Cuts off access to sister boondoggle."
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
Do you mean capital gains tax? As you have it phrased, it is nonsensical.
Dividends are, along with capital gains, treated differently than ordinary income (and they are often reported together on 1099 forms), but the two are distinct concepts (a capital gain results from a capital asset increasing in value, a dividend is a distribution of corporate income).
The whole point of Home and Professional is that they can get away with it.
Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
Apparently the word only has slight right wing connotations (Based on my internal definition, I was going to reply disagreeing completely that it meant right wing, but looking around shows that there is some connotation there).
I would expect that many people use it to mean someone with extreme views (which this guy certainly did have).
Most of the GDP of the United States is consumed. Some of it is turned into wealth (An amount that is smaller than it seems, things like land often increase in value with no input of productivity).
Deciding if the distribution is fair is a big job (even coming up with some sort of measurement of the fairness is a tough job), but I guarantee you that the distribution is not skewed so that 1% are collectively getting more than the other 99% (certainly there is a 1% that individually have obscene access to resources, but the group of people getting more than a 'fair' share is likely to be much larger than that, depending on how you define fair, and so forth).
Much of the benefit of using the drones is lost when your enemy has similar levels of resources available (if drones were being used against U.S. troops, the military would be happy to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to shoot each one down, and they could spend those dollars on American war industry).
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
Naked short selling is illegal (and it is reasonable for it to be so given the amount of information that is hidden from consumer participants; if the buyer always knew the short was naked it wouldn't be so bad). Obviously that doesn't completely prevent it, but it isn't 'the way the market works'.
Anyway, a share of a company is a tangible thing (it is a claim on the future revenues of the company). Revenues are not a tangible thing in that sense, they are an accounting detail of the corporation.
I guess it really depends on your audience. I'm not an expert and don't really pay that much attention to the design community, so take this in that context, but I do get the impression that they often discover that people have a great deal of difficulty in figuring out what the various elements of a screen are for.
Extending the audience thing: more and more people are going to be using 'pointer free' devices (it is possible to make a pointer available on a touchscreen device, but it isn't necessarily as straightforward as with a mouse, so let's set aside the discussion about the exactly correct label); for those folks, click-drop menus are better than hover menus (but still usable with a pointer).
(Anecdotally, of the several hundred native (or native emulating) UI elements on my screen right now, exactly None of them trigger interactivity when hovered, but many/most of them highlight when hovered. The big exception is nested menu items, but they all also respond to clicks. So I could probably paste together an argument about using hover to trigger interactivity being a recent mistake made by web designers)
I would go in the other direction; Hover is probably a terrible way to signal interactivity, and an even worse way to actually carry it out.
"Don't know what to do on this webpage? Scan your pointer in a grid to feel the magic!"
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
Which is where I got twisted up. You said capital gains and I took you 100% at your word (whereas you were clearly lumping dividends in).
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
Larry Bagina made it make sense to me below (the income is (apparently) recognized as a dividend, rather than a capital gain; my complaint was that the capital in capital gains are usually on something tangible).
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
Is that for any amount, or do caps similar to those implied for personal income apply?
(I would expect the caps to still apply)
So basically, there needs to be something more than a legal fiction standing behind the dividend, or the whole thing will be treated as tax evasion (which is sort of hard to argue with).
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
The part that doesn't jibe for me is that capital gains taxes (in my understanding) are paid when the gain is recognized (so, for instance, if the company were sold). There are probably capital losses that are worth transferring out if possible.
I would expect that an individual operating as a company would either have to pay themselves a salary, or they would have to treat the business income as personal income (if they wanted to do non business things with the money).
I guess the biggest problem is that there are two 'cans' involved when it comes to taxes, there is the stuff you can write down and submit, and then there is the stuff you can reasonably expect the IRS to accept if they take a closer look.
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
Are you speaking from personal experience? This contradicts my understanding of what a capital gain actually is (which could well be the problem).
Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
The U.S. has a rich history of angry citizens attacking society, it isn't anything new.
Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
There are only so many people that have the ironic composition of despair about their financial futures, thousands of dollars to spend attempting to fight tax classification that isn't that onerous and a private plane.
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 3, Informative
How are contractors realizing capital gains? Are they 'creating' software and then transferring ownership of it?
Slashdot Mirror
Millions of dollars a day is a few billion dollars a year. It's insane, but it is peanuts.
I saw it on the NBC nightly news the day that it happened. The national news.
I was somewhat horrified.
He is advertizerating his feed thingamajob.
It isn't an empirical problem, it is an epistemological problem.
(We can draw some conclusions about what we think is probable, but we actually can't rule out, say, that the world is made out of Unicorns that like to be tickled on the horn)
We can't pierce that veil with current science.
That doesn't say anything about whether it is possible.
Why bother? The snitch is his own punishment, he has to be himself.
"Hilarious boondoggle ends. Cuts off access to sister boondoggle."
Do you mean capital gains tax? As you have it phrased, it is nonsensical.
Dividends are, along with capital gains, treated differently than ordinary income (and they are often reported together on 1099 forms), but the two are distinct concepts (a capital gain results from a capital asset increasing in value, a dividend is a distribution of corporate income).
The whole point of Home and Professional is that they can get away with it.
Apparently the word only has slight right wing connotations (Based on my internal definition, I was going to reply disagreeing completely that it meant right wing, but looking around shows that there is some connotation there).
I would expect that many people use it to mean someone with extreme views (which this guy certainly did have).
Most of the GDP of the United States is consumed. Some of it is turned into wealth (An amount that is smaller than it seems, things like land often increase in value with no input of productivity).
Deciding if the distribution is fair is a big job (even coming up with some sort of measurement of the fairness is a tough job), but I guarantee you that the distribution is not skewed so that 1% are collectively getting more than the other 99% (certainly there is a 1% that individually have obscene access to resources, but the group of people getting more than a 'fair' share is likely to be much larger than that, depending on how you define fair, and so forth).
If that comparison actually has some meaning, we need to start getting rid of all the dogs, because they pose a bigger physical threat than ACTA.
Much of the benefit of using the drones is lost when your enemy has similar levels of resources available (if drones were being used against U.S. troops, the military would be happy to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to shoot each one down, and they could spend those dollars on American war industry).
Naked short selling is illegal (and it is reasonable for it to be so given the amount of information that is hidden from consumer participants; if the buyer always knew the short was naked it wouldn't be so bad). Obviously that doesn't completely prevent it, but it isn't 'the way the market works'.
Anyway, a share of a company is a tangible thing (it is a claim on the future revenues of the company). Revenues are not a tangible thing in that sense, they are an accounting detail of the corporation.
I guess it really depends on your audience. I'm not an expert and don't really pay that much attention to the design community, so take this in that context, but I do get the impression that they often discover that people have a great deal of difficulty in figuring out what the various elements of a screen are for.
Extending the audience thing: more and more people are going to be using 'pointer free' devices (it is possible to make a pointer available on a touchscreen device, but it isn't necessarily as straightforward as with a mouse, so let's set aside the discussion about the exactly correct label); for those folks, click-drop menus are better than hover menus (but still usable with a pointer).
(Anecdotally, of the several hundred native (or native emulating) UI elements on my screen right now, exactly None of them trigger interactivity when hovered, but many/most of them highlight when hovered. The big exception is nested menu items, but they all also respond to clicks. So I could probably paste together an argument about using hover to trigger interactivity being a recent mistake made by web designers)
You know what else breaks the semantic web?
Liars.
So once all the easy technical problems are solved, the only problem left is an intractable social problem.
I would go in the other direction; Hover is probably a terrible way to signal interactivity, and an even worse way to actually carry it out.
"Don't know what to do on this webpage? Scan your pointer in a grid to feel the magic!"
Which is where I got twisted up. You said capital gains and I took you 100% at your word (whereas you were clearly lumping dividends in).
Larry Bagina made it make sense to me below (the income is (apparently) recognized as a dividend, rather than a capital gain; my complaint was that the capital in capital gains are usually on something tangible).
Is that for any amount, or do caps similar to those implied for personal income apply?
(I would expect the caps to still apply)
So basically, there needs to be something more than a legal fiction standing behind the dividend, or the whole thing will be treated as tax evasion (which is sort of hard to argue with).
The part that doesn't jibe for me is that capital gains taxes (in my understanding) are paid when the gain is recognized (so, for instance, if the company were sold). There are probably capital losses that are worth transferring out if possible.
I would expect that an individual operating as a company would either have to pay themselves a salary, or they would have to treat the business income as personal income (if they wanted to do non business things with the money).
I guess the biggest problem is that there are two 'cans' involved when it comes to taxes, there is the stuff you can write down and submit, and then there is the stuff you can reasonably expect the IRS to accept if they take a closer look.
Are you speaking from personal experience? This contradicts my understanding of what a capital gain actually is (which could well be the problem).
The U.S. has a rich history of angry citizens attacking society, it isn't anything new.
There are only so many people that have the ironic composition of despair about their financial futures, thousands of dollars to spend attempting to fight tax classification that isn't that onerous and a private plane.
How are contractors realizing capital gains? Are they 'creating' software and then transferring ownership of it?