In particular for charities that perform work the government would otherwise be engaging in, the opposite should be true, and a tax credit to refund 100% of the expenditure should be provided. The reason being is if you donate $100 to a charity that provides for example clothing or meals to welfare recipients, that's $100 the government doesn't need to spend on such programs. However, you are only credited ~$30 towards your tax bill, yet you are net negative $100 that you gave to the charity. The government makes a net positive $70 on your $100 donation to charity. Considering you are spending money so the government doesn't have to, you should be credited the full $100 donation instead of just the $30 that would otherwise go to your tax bill.
(though you can elect to have an LLC taxed as a corporation, which may be advantageous in certain situations)
This is really the crux of what I was trying to understand...thank you for catching that. Can you expand on this as to why it is advantageous to be taxed as a corporation? Tax rates for corporations all are higher than personal tax rates. I assume the 15% self-employment tax is the difference, or is there more?
A basic right is something you inherently have, and cannot be taken away. It's not something to be provided by the government. I wish more people had a better understanding of this.
If the author's reading this, it sounds like you're fairly early in your career and learned a tough business lesson the hard way. Not to downplay what went down, but take solace in the fact that you have a set of hard skills that will earn you lots of money over the course of your career; the others in the story obviously don't have this. The best way to get revenge when you're screwed over by someone is to keep pushing forward and accomplish greater things than what you lost. If you want to be a successful entrepreneur, this attitude is almost a requirement considering the endless setbacks you'll face. Best of luck going forward!
Well I was thinking more in terms of not only top down communication, but also bottom up (reporting, identification of problems on the ground floor, etc). The vast majority of our economy is goal-driven, with a very small percentage of workers actually defining the goals, doing creative work, or doing research. Consider the impact on the world if the latest research from the lab was instantly decimated to the entire community, feedback provided, and new knowledge spread to industry. This is the positive aspect of the technology I am thinking about (of course many, many years in the future).
Absolutely, although I've always been interested in the aspect it can have on internal corporate communication. This is the #1 challenge/cost driver in every company today. Maybe I'm thinking in the realm of science fiction still, but to be able to effortlessly communicate the precise info every individual in an organization needs at the instant they need it would unleash an unprecedented explosion of economic growth around the world.
For all the hype surrounding AI, virtual reality, and augmented reality as being the next big trends in tech, I really feel like brain/computer interfaces are what is really going to change our world in unprecedented ways. The technology is still a long, long ways from having a visible impact for most people, but I am more interested/excited/scared about this technology than anything else going on in the tech world right now.
For those who come across this post as future reference - Stripe Atlas is working to fill the niche I described above. They work with Silicon Valley Bank, and will also incorporate your business+a few other administrative services.
Yeah, it's happened in the past where they show you little thumbnails of your photos album to encourage you to share/post, but the fact that they created a video (during an eventful, emotional, and exciting but very private time) was a bit much. Your comment is a little reassuring, but the fact that FB doesn't have the greatest track record, and this is hearsay on HN, I'm still concerned/annoyed.
I think what I'm talking about is something different. I never opted in, and I also can't adjust the settings at the location the help page directed me to.
This is tangentially related to this, but apparently their mobile app now automatically downloads all the photos on your phone if you give permissions to access photos? My wife and I recently had a child, and when I opened up the app to post one single photo of our child, Facebook was showing in my newsfeed a video they made with all of my photos I had taken. This seems like a gross violation of my privacy. Is there any way to prevent this aside from deleting the app and no longer sharing photos with family and friends via FB?
My company recruits heavily on college campuses via their career departments. We also use Indeed. We've tried out Craig's List, but haven't had much luck.
I'm shocked to see no one here has even discussed over-regulation as an issue. The more things you tell people they can't do, and instead mandate they do things they may not want to or need to do, the less opportunity they have to do things they want to do, which is what people generally are willing to pay for (an thus increases economic growth).
Tell the hiring manager that companies aren't built to show career progression/build a resume, they're built to fill a customer need. You prefer to spend your time thinking about how to better fulfill your customer's needs than checking off boxes for your resume.
Your argument basically revolves around two points. One is that if you feel one candidate represents your views, then you need to vote for that candidate. That's absolutely, 100% fine and what you should do! I am speaking to the people who don't find their views fit with either candidate, or the negatives outweigh the positives so much, that they feel they are not given a real choice, which is not really true. The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate, which is like saying you should only cheer for a sports team that has a viable chance of winning a championship. That's ridiculous, and just passive aggressive bullying to get people to feel they need to vote for a candidate you support. People should be free to vote with their hearts for whomever they feel best represents their interests. If the candidate they vote for loses, fine, that's the democratic process, and has a 50% chance of happening anyways if you vote for a 'viable' candidate. If someone feels they have to vote for the candidate who is going to win, that's something more akin to countries like Venezuela or Iran, where there are elections, but we all know how much choice people are actually given in those places.
Like I said, it's important for those managers to put together a team that doesn't have this attitude about their managers, and instead respects them for their ability to organize and lead the team forward, not nitpick other individuals for their lack of technical expertise. To recognize the difference in skill set is the mark of a great programmer. There are many, many examples in the industry of great non-technical leaders leading technical teams, Steve Jobs being the most famous one.
To the other comments here saying voting third party is the worst possible option, no, it's not. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. Furthermore, it's putting a two vote differential between evil and a third party candidate that has to be 'undone' by someone willing to vote third party (-1 third party you didn't vote for, +1 for evil). If you are saying you have to choose between two bad candidates, you are implying you would choose a better option if one existed. If you don't think the third party candidate is a better option, that's fine, don't vote third party, but if you think the major party options are evil, the just don't vote. Then at least you aren't voting for evil that needs to be undone by someone willing to vote third party.
In general, I agree, but it's also important for the manager to put together a team that respects him for his managerial ability rather than his ability to do the individual contributor's job. No respectable athlete evaluates his coach on his own athletic skill.
Yes, but it becomes much harder to do once precedent is set. Interest groups spring up around the current status quo, and it takes a lot of momentum to convince the general population that a change is necessary. If EVERYONE is using Bitcoin and their effective tax rate is 15%, I don't think changing the tax rate to align with income tax rates will go over very well.
I think I saw previously that the IRS classifies Bitcoins the same way? If digital currency becomes ubiquitous, I have a feeling our government is going to regret setting these precedents.