If they do (and it's unlikely as there's a *lot* of legacy that stays in the tax code regardless of changes for future options), having a Roth is no worse than having a regular savings account. Actually, its better because all of the gains and dividends are tax free while they're in the account. Worst case is you roll it into a non-retirement account and pay taxes on the gains, probably on an extended time frame for capture.
Yeah, but it always happened when they were gone...it was like those god damned aliens *waited* until lunch time to pull their stunt, and no matter how fast the scientists rushed to get back - sometimes not even waiting until the food was done - it always happened right before they got back.
(btw - I naturally didn't rtfa, but if they worked odd shifts from time to time it would have show up occasionally during non-work hours, throwing them off.)
"One would need to start with a giant wrecking ball and remove everything ever built there and then set a population cap on an entirely new city to be built in its place.
Your proposal is acceptable.
I asked about a procedure with my ENT a while back. He actually didn't know the total cost (though it was fairly common). He thought his fees would be in the 2k range, but he didn't know what the hospital would charge for a few hours of a room, operating theater, and support. So I called the hospital - and they didn't know either.
MSAs (medical savings accounts) already exist, but are limited to people who choose HDHPs (high deductable health plans, with special limits) and to about $3k/yr for singles and $6k/yr for families. It's your money, going pre-tax into your savings/investment account and able to be withdrawn for medical uses tax free. It's not federal government.
What we need is a way to ensure that services are not billed to private clients (individuals) for more than large corporate clients (insurers). If I pay cash for a procedure, I shouldn't be charged 5-10X what I would be charged if I were insured.
"Mind you, I'm not advocating that we halt technological progress, but we're coming up on a time when there just aren't going to be enough jobs to go around, and the economy is going to have to adjust for that in a way that rewards people who work but doesn't starve people who want to work but can't find jobs."
I've been saying this for years (decades, really). In the 1970s it was said we'd all be working a 10 hour work week. Except that humans are regularly willing to trade 40-50 hours a week in return for [more] pay [than their peers] and as a result the number of jobs is dropping. Couple that with the ability of computers and robotics to take over a large swath of jobs at the "bottom" of the workforce and there's going to be a reckoning at some point.
That's just temporary. Soon the "drivers" will be remote, with the feeds to a central terminal where a team of virtual drivers are available to take over in the event of conditions which the computer cannot navigate, and for parking/docking/interactions. An office of 50 drivers will be able to monitor and control 1000 or more vehicles in service.
That's where your real savings will come from.
That's what corporate deep pockets are for. She can pay them back* if she gets elected.
*with the congealed blood of a thousand rotting babies she used for target practice
Because the plain old internet doesn't make much money for anyone.
You're talking about putting infrastructure into places where there is no expectation of the local population valuing the connection enough to pay for it. And infrastructure doesn't pop up for free.
Philanthropy is wonderful, but it's not generally part of the business plan for major corporations. Especially when that philanthropy would allow competitors direct access to users.
There was no such ambiguity within the residents of Blacksburg. Most students currently at Tech were not students when the original shooting happened, or even know students who were here. But those of us who live here remember, and remember quite vividly. There was no question that this was related. Asking some kid who probably 12 when the shootings happened probably isn't going to get you much response.
I'd like to ensure that both sides of this suffer maximum casualties. Ending up with only one bat-shit crazy fundamentalist cult doesn't help.
Calling in a bomb threat has always been a crime, not a prank. I see three possible conditions here:
1. He heard of a plot for a mass murder on the Virginia Tech campus and warned the community via Yik Yak
2. He was personally threatening to carry out a mass murder on the Virginia Tech campus and decided to go super villain style and announce it
3. Neither 1 or 2, He was pranking a mass murder threat on the Virginia Tech campus
If it's (1), then he's free and clear once he comes clean about all he knows of the plot for mass murder and there is credible evidence to show that such an event was immanent. If it's (2) then he's likely facing free room and board with roomates not of his choosing and very little outdoor time for the foreseeable future. If it's (3) it would fall under threats in the Virginia statutes, and is a class 6 Felony. Note that the law does not distinguish between an empty threat and a viable threat; when it is in writing (including digital communications) it meets the test of the law.
If you posted "Another 9.11 is going to happen, just a warning" on September 10th in a New York area yak, do you think it would be taken seriously?
better yet - how about "Another 4.15 is going to happen, just a warning" on the day before the Boston Marathon a couple weeks ago in a yak centered near the start or finish of the race - do you think it would have been taken seriously?
Comparing a lone-gunman of a few years ago to an invasion by a hostile air force / navy from 3/4 century ago is very, very different.
Just put the solar panels in the grow room - boom, free power!
Except without all that silly permanence when things go wrong.
As long as the founders played the corporation game right, they have no personal liability at stake. A corporation is just like a person, except that when a corporation violates a law which would burden it for life, or financially destroy it, it magically disintegrates leaving the real people who ran it into the ground clean and unencumbered by their wrongdoing.
There are good reasons for the existence of corporations; this isn't one of them.