That's what a lot of people thought in the 2000s, but going by SV salaries the automate or offshore story hasn't really played out! Then again, horses seem to have lost their job in the early 20th century after cars came along, and their population just declined thereafter.
You mean what happens when economy does well enough that it starts overheating which forces an exit from the liquidity trap and turns real interest rates positive? I guess we'll find out soon.
Central bank buying govt debt or QE is basically just maturity transformation. The Fed / ECB / BoE buys 10 year debt and issues cash which is also a form of govt. debt. IMO, when interest rates are as low as they are, it is foolish to issue short term debt. A lot of people like Martin Wolf and John Cochrane have been calling on govts to take advantage of the low interest rates and issue perpetual (or 50 or 100 year) debt and insulate themselves from sharp increase in inflation or interest rates.
if they find free market buyers for 100 year debt at current interest rates, sure. I'm not sure there will be many, so the central banks would end up buying most of it themselves.
Soros is also advocating perpetual bonds for the EU/ECB, especially Club Med countries, with the whole union guaranteeing the debt. Northern EU member states are already subsidising the south/east member states, something like this would set it in stone for a long time.
Pension funds are required to own some percentage of their assets in govt bonds. Also, many high net worth individuals have a strong preference for safe assets like govt bonds. And then there are speculators who think interest rates will fall and they'll make killing by actively trading on long term bonds. So, there will be buyers. Not all of it is being purchased by central banks.
true, there are some free market participants but central banks such a big % of the buyers that if they stopped buying, rates would shoot through the roof
I'm not so sure about that. When the Fed was tapering and starting to raise rates back in 2018, the bond market flashed warning signs in December 2018 with long term rates falling sharply and the yield curve inverting.
Then there's also the market expectations of whether the Fed is willing to go with negative interest rates, which would influence the behavior of bond traders.
I'm not an economics expert, but I suspect this is because "existence of capital" and "access to capital" are quite different.
Put another way, abundant capital exists, but sadly it is disproportionately concentrated and not that readily available to the masses, so demand-pull inflation inevitably kicks in.
CentOS has been amazing for me for the last decade on the server side of things. I've rolled out 5, 6 and 7 on a large scale and it has been nothing short of miraculously stable. I hope RockyLinux continues this trend.
You're right - but it depends how and when you pay yourself... a balance of salary and dividends, where dividends are not deductible. For me I may have a good year followed by a weak year, so I use last year's profit to keep me going!
> If you're in the UK and still using dividends as a significant method to self-compensate, you may benefit from speaking to a (better) accountant.
I'm curious what you're eluding to here? Using dividends as a significant method to self-compensate (for single-person companies) seems to be a pretty common practice recommended by every UK accountant I've spoken to / used.
There's roughly £12,000 tax free allowance on salaries and only £2500 on dividends. The common recommendation is to maximize your tax free allowance (pay yourself 12k PAYE) and then pay out anything else as dividends (though dividends legally require you operate at a profit).
That's the standard common advice that I'm referring to and that the post I replied to seemed to suggest is not what a (better) accountant would recommend.
It's the advice I've received too, but I'm also new to most of it. One downside (I think) is that I can't take advantage of the R&D tax credits with this approach!
It mostly depends if you intend to make significant pension contributions.
Let's say your company has £100K to play with and you want it all.
- You can pay yourself a £100K salary, of which take home pay will be about ~£67K
- You can pay yourself a £8,840 salary tax free in order to qualify for the state pension but minimize national insurance, and pay 19% corporation tax on the remaining £91,160, which leaves £73,839 to pay in dividends. Take home pay will be ~£69K. A win.
- Roughly (as this is more complicated). You can pay yourself a £48,840 salary, sacrificing £40K in to your pension completely tax free, pay corporation tax on the remaining ~£51K, and then pay it out as dividends. Take home will be about ~£47K with another £40K in your pension!
- More elaborate schemes are possible, where you use your personal pension to invest in commercial property which you then lease back to your company as a tax deductible expense.
I am surprised such loopholes still exist in UK. In Australia if you setup a company and 80% of the company's income is only from your own personal services from a single client then your company has to pay tax on personal income tax rates. These sort of loopholes were closed many moons back.
I don't think that's really such a huge loophole. Pension aside, it's a 2% difference in total tax burden that's probably going to be swallowed up by other company related admin expenses anyway.
I'm self employed and get the bulk of my income through dividends. As with the example above, I often end up paying roughly the same amount of tax as someone with the equivalent salary would.
The big advantage for me is that I can have a very good year and a very bad year and pay an appropriate (smoothed out) level of income tax across both - which seems fair to me.
Not only that but you get significant tax relief on your £40k pension contributions (about £8k I think) so takehome plus pension is about £95k from the £100k initially.
Sure, so Microsoft still (not so) indirectly contributes to the tax coffers. But it's still pretty bad that the rich MS shareholders can benefit from schemes like these, while employees can't.
No. Feeling ill is mostly due to the innate immune response which declines with age (so seniors have fewer side effects). The adaptive immunity triggered does not seem to be correlated with the innate response or feeling ill.
1. Central planning might work today but not in a democracy. Keeping the economy at arms length distance from politics seems essential in a liberal democracy. Pretty sure Amazon wouldn’t be as successful if the leadership was elected by employees / customers / stakeholders.
2. The problem with autocracy + central planning is when things go wrong or the world changes in some important way (or people’s preferences change). No way to correct or replace the administration without revolution.
So, I’d still bet on liberal democracy and capitalism over the long term.
Democracy and capitalism are not joined at the hip, and while the neoliberals are praising the idol of free market, capitalism is dismembering our democratic institutions, like independant journalism and access to justice.
Both PS5 and Xbox use AMD Zen 2 CPU. I guess you meant that PS5 and Xbox don't use Intel CPUs.
I highly doubt Intel wants to be in the low margin business of supplying console CPUs. Intel's fortune is entirely dependent on whether it can get back advanced process node crown from TSMC.
