States that have low state and local taxes do so because the federal government subsidizes their low taxness.
Yes and no. Texas and Nevada are bottom 10 ranked on federal funding per capita. They also have no income tax. Alaska and Wyoming are top 10 ranked in federal funding per capita. So it's not as black and white as you're claiming. Revenue comes from many sources at the state level not just income: licenses, mineral rights, sales, property, etc..
You can't rely on income taxes a proxy for tax rates.
Many states with low or no income taxes have monster property taxes. State, local, and property taxes are all one bucket. You have to make sure you are counting all of these together when you talk about taxes.
I live in Maryland and my property tax is like 1/4th of my parents in Ohio, and there are a lot worse states for property tax than Ohio.
Texas is an outlier, however, due to its history with oil and mineral rights. Alaska is another one. These states didn't earn the natural resources they are exploiting, but they have benefitted from them considerably, and this has allowed them to operate differently than most other low-tax states.
Did NYC "earn" it's first-mover advantage, natural harbor, and particular terrestrial makeup that supports high-rise buildings on the solid granite beneath the feet of every NYC resident?
Did CA "earn" it's fertile central valley, diverse climates great for agriculture and recreation, and miles of gorgeous coastline?
Each wave of residents exploits the resources available to them. No more. No less.
Let's not pretend otherwise. Economics is not a morality tale.
While I'm not going to dispute your larger point, I do want to point out that New York was not originally the shipping capital of the colonies; Philadelphia was. New York City only became the center of trade that it was for so many years after constructing the Erie Canal, allowing trade to easily reach into the Great Lakes and the center of the continent. Many of New York's subsequent advantages (such as the dominance of the NYSE as the various exchanges consolidated) stem from this.
Likewise, California has a great climate for many types of agriculture precisely because it gets so little rain in the Central Valley; farmers can irrigate their crops to the ideal amount water at each point in their lifespan, while farmers elsewhere in the country are subject to the whims of nature. Integral to California's success in agriculture, then, is their investment in irrigation.
Again, I don't mean to dispute your core points, but while it's good to be lucky, investments also compound. California and New York have both historically invested in their economies through massive public works.
I don't see your argument. Texas improved it's economy by digging out the fossil fuels. It's not like they automatically get oil out of a natural spring and just have to fill up their tankers with it.
Building oil pumps doesn't matter if there is no oil to be pumped. Therefore having the economic viability to build oil pumps is a geographic advantage.
Building a canal doesn't matter if it doesn't let you reach the center of the continent. Therefore the economic viability to build a canal is a geographic advantage.
Building an irrigation system doesn't matter if you cannot control the irrigation.
Therefore the economic viability to build a precise irrigation system is a geographic advantage.
Those investments would be completely worthless without the geographic advantage that is needed to optimally use them. Nails don't hammer themselves but without nails there is nothing to hammer. Yet you seem to be focusing on only one of those and implying that someone else's hammer is not a real hammer, they just found the nails already in place in the furniture.
I'm not denying that some states got lucky on natural resources or geography, I'm saying that some states have also invested local resources in developing their economy. They do this by levying taxes on the state and local level and building infrastructure.
SALT deductions incentivize states and localities to do this. They're still incentivizing this, since the deductions were only capped and not eliminated. Do you think states were over-incentivized to invest in their own infrastructure previously?
1) I believe most employees were paid more in that discussion from 8 months ago.
2) If any employees own equity it's also in their best interests to buyback shares since they'll own more of the company. It also means the founder(s) see a bigger potential pay out in the future and will continue putting all of their energy into the business.
The Buffer team's idea of success became different from the VC's who initially invested -- it's smart to capitalize on this and buy back your cap table if the price is right, you can afford it, and you think the company will succeed.
In the U.S. this is how employees work as well -- they can leave a company for any reason at any time. Conversely, employers can dismiss at employee for any reason and at any time as long as it's not illegal.
No, such limitations would likely be illegal (without additional compensation, beyond the wages, also being stipulated for the period where the employee couldn't leave / couldn't be let go) in many states. I have never seen such a guarantee / requirement in an employment contract, such a "key man" provision would likely be reserved for someone who is in possession of some critical knowledge to the company and company is willing to pay for it.
It's a double edged sword. It's easy to be let go (basically, pack your stuff and get out while escorted by security, just like in the movies), but it also makes it much easier for companies to take a risk and hire you. In Europe, hiring someone is a big risk and companies are extremely careful to hire since they're taking on a big responsibility. As a result, permanently contracted positions are even more common in Europe than the US as a result in my experience.
And yet US companies do homework assignments first round and 8 hour interviews second round if not even more.
I have had jobs offered after a two hour technical interview plus 1 hour hr interview in Germany.
I assume you mean "trading on margin". Swaps are custom contracts and not something average people are doing. IB definitely supports trading on margin and has one of the lowest rates around to do so.
IB is definitely the choice for someone who wants to have real market access and tools at their fingertips.
One of the challenges I've always had with scheduling systems is travel across timezones. If I'm in NYC this week and London next week my calendar has to shift to that timezone and then back. How do you envision this working? Is it something you guys are thinking about?
Hi there -- timezones are something we've thought a lot about. We allow you to save a few favorite timezones like NYC and London, and then quickly toggle between those timezones from the Meetingbird calendar. By default, Meetingbird adjusts to the current timezone you're logging in from. For sharing availability through our Meet links, you can specify which timezone you are so that meeting requestors are notified if their timezones differs. Let me know if there are other timezone specific features you'd like to see!
I'm in NYC and I send out a calendly link to someone to schedule a meeting
A day goes by and I end up buying a ticket to London for next week.
Person schedules a time on my calendar for next week based on my availability I've set up in NYC time.
I don't realize this until next week when I'm in London and there's a call scheduled at 9pm London time / 4pm New York time.
Ideally I'd be able to drag across my calendar and tell you I'll be in London from Monday-Friday. During that period I want my availability to stay the same relative to London's timezone. So if I usually have slots from 2-4pm available for recruiting calls I want that same schedule to apply in London at the same time. Does that make sense?
Does anyone know what about this is using AI? Seems like it's just using their Midas product and then sending emails to contacts using uploaded templates.
> If you are a US citizen and you get in trouble somewhere on earth, the US government will come to your aid.
Agree this is worth something. I would propose a substantially decreased federal tax bracket (maybe 1-5%) for expats. Sort of like how you pay a decreased vehicle tax when it's not in use.
As a general rule the U.S. government does help citizens abroad. I don't know all the details surrounding this article so I can't comment on whether or not DOS was right or wrong. With a little digging I'm sure you can find thousands of articles about citizens who were helped.
> Would Cruise have been accepted to Ycombinator at all if it had just been Kyle applying?
Yes, without a doubt. He's previously YC by way of Justin.tv / Socialcam / Twitch. If you're good enough to go through YC once and have a track record of success you're a shoe-in for your next venture.
Realistically Kyle would have been accepted to YC without any idea and he would have been wildly successful with Cruise even without YC.
Yes, the water pump is interesting but it just will not work for so long at this state. If made of concrete, aquatic organisms will block the lames in a couple of months.
If you look at other forms of compound tax rates you'll see the same pattern AFAIK.