> because once you reach a certain (very high) level of wealth, there’s the “buy, borrow, die” strategy that avoids realizing most of your capital gains
If that is what is being targeted, then why not actually target that. Apply some percent taxation on the current value of all assets transferred because of death. And, if they want, only apply it to estates over some X threshold in size.
Performing the taxation at time of probate makes the valuation easy (unlike a 'wealth tax') because the valuation could be one of "value at time of death" or "value at time of transfer". And, if the ultra wealthy are using this angle to avoid taxes, then this taxes some of that transferred value.
Of course, just like with subscriptions, to the politicians a yearly wealth tax is far more valuable than a one time tax on the total value of the estate.
>If that is what is being targeted, then why not actually target that. Apply some percent taxation on the current value of all assets transferred because of death.
That already exists. The rate is 40% of the asset value.
> Why didn't they just put a higher amp breaker in the box?
1) note the word "apartment" -- they rent, not own, and doing so not only would likely be illegal, but might also get them kicked out of the apartment.
2) Unless the wiring on the circuit drop, and all the end points are rated to handle the higher current, doing so would be an electrical code violation (and therefore trip into that "illegal" arena that might result in getting kicked out of the apartment).
Most residences are wired using the minimum size wire rated for the installed breaker (because doing so saves costs). So a 15a breaker in the box would mean 14gauge (the US NEC minimum size for 15a circuits) wiring in the walls and 15a rated outlets/switches. Installing a 20a breaker in the box would be a code violation, and in many jurisdictions also illegal.
And all the above is without considering that installing a 20a breaker on wires rated for 15a increases the fire risk tremendously if those wires are now asked to actually carry 20a for any length of time.
The article stated that this was dismissed because the author lives in a rental apartment and he was not certain the landlord would agree to making this change.
I did not see any indication that the landlord was ever actually asked, it appeared to be the author's "sense" that any answer would be "no" from the landlord.
> If it is an electronic payment, I'm not sure how completing the transaction in front of a police station will help any.
That's not the point of going to the "police safe exchange zone".
The point is to hopefully prevent the possibility of the buyer showing up with a .38 in hand, and demanding to be given the easy to fence "item" unless the seller wants to get a .38 slug embedded in their gut.
The risk of a "hold up" increases with dollar value and with items that are easier to fence.
The same way you prevent yourself from engaging with trolls. Be alert, pay attention, when you get the sense you are engaging in fake content (or with a troll) then disengage.
Ok, but let's say in the future it becomes impossible to distinguish.
I use your comment
The same way you [prevent] yourself from [engaging] with trolls. Be alert, [pay attention], when you get the [sense] you are engaging in [fake content] (or with a troll) then [disengage].
The same way you [prohibit] yourself from [involving] with trolls. Be alert, [take note], when you get the [hunch] you are engaging in [fluff] (or with a troll) then [withdrawal].
That's enough data to encode.
Does even matter? As long as the replies are sufficiently relevant, and I am completely blinded.
> How will we know in the future that what we are replying to is not some bot with alter motive?
How do you know today that you are not doing the same? How did you know last year you were not conversing with some bot? Absent some tell to indicate "likely a bot" you have no way to know with certainty.
Hmm, so maybe it doesn't even matter. As long as I'm completely blinded to what's going on. Although it could be considered kinda abusive if you thought you were talking to a real person all along.
$5M is not nearly large enough (assuming Disney lost) of a dollar figure to make a company like Disney even notice that cost. That's "pocket change" for a "Disney", they could just pay out $5M as a cost of doing business with no one noticing anywhere. So unless the loss also enjoined them from performing any facial scanning, nothing will change at the parks.
The solution there is to not bother with "streaming services" and just download the readily available alternative captures, which include the original music.
Actually, the "key" to soldering is finally buying oneself a very good iron. I learned soldering years ago (going on 50 or so now) but always used basic "wood burners". But I did enough that I got good at it with the rug burners.
A couple years back, I bought a low end no-name temp controlled iron, and it worked ok. A little better than the wood burner, but nothing great. Then about three years ago I bought a used Metcal SP200 Smartheat off of eBay for about $120. The tips are pricey (although Thermaltronics makes clone tips that cost less than genuine Metcal tips) but the difference in soldering performance is like night and day, even when one already knows how, but has just never used the really good systems.
Once you have the .mkv on your local computer system, then only actual hardware failures will prevent you from watching it whenever, wherever, and for as many times as you want to do so.
If that is what is being targeted, then why not actually target that. Apply some percent taxation on the current value of all assets transferred because of death. And, if they want, only apply it to estates over some X threshold in size.
Performing the taxation at time of probate makes the valuation easy (unlike a 'wealth tax') because the valuation could be one of "value at time of death" or "value at time of transfer". And, if the ultra wealthy are using this angle to avoid taxes, then this taxes some of that transferred value.
Of course, just like with subscriptions, to the politicians a yearly wealth tax is far more valuable than a one time tax on the total value of the estate.
reply