"People don't even do escrow when they buy a house. But they should. But I guess the real estate lobby wouldn't like that at all."
You are entirely incorrect: Every house purchased using a bank loan (i.e 95+%) is transacted through an escrow company with title insurance, and the entities involved in the escrow process are, in fact, the real estate industry.
"That bill was only a few pages long"
Paulson's 3 page plan was never a bill. It was proposed as an amendment to an existing bill, and that amendment was voted down in the House.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which was part of H.R. 1424, and when enacted part of Public Law 110-343, was over 451 pages of legislation.
And it didn't allow the Federal Reserve to give out money to banks, it allowed the U.S. Treasury to BUY assets, in the market.
"Are you sure your source wasn't already inflation adjusted?"
It was, and his point stands.
40 years of productivity growth and technological advancement, with the average worker no better off financially (fn1).
fn1: at least per CPI/PCE deflators; there is some debate about the impact of BLS's hedonic adjustments and how the value of technological progress is included in inflation metrics.
Interesting comment (but I want to reply, so can't moderate)
"More Americans died in [the Civil War] than WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and the Revolution... combined. Only WWII had more."
re: WWII had more deaths: Yes (KIA) and No (total military deaths).
Also, disease prevention and battlefield medicine had and has advanced, so while the proportion of non-combat military deaths to total military deaths decreased from the Civil War to WWII (better disease prevention/treatment), the proportion of combat deaths to total injuries also decreased from the Civil War to WWII, and has kept on decreasing through Vietnam and to Afghanistan/Iraq (better battlefield medicine)
2/3 of Civil War military deaths were by disease, not combat injuries (dysentery, typhoid, TB, malaria, pneumonia). And if you got seriously injured, you were likely to die.
By contrast, 77% of U.S. military deaths in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars (post-2001) are combat deaths, not due to diseases. However, if you get shot, even severely wounded, you have a good chance of surviving.
Sure, but here you have the CEO telling the other shareholders that as long as he works for them, he can't improve the value of the company above $13 and change per share, but if they go away, he has great structural and product ideas to improve that value. (and no, the compliance costs of being a public company is not the difference)
He cannot argue both of those points simultaneously and expect not to get pushback from shareholders who think he is pulling a fast on on them. If he is correct in his view of the future, then he should be fired as current CEO immediately.
The fact that Google went to lengths to say the sales were negotiated and finalized in Ireland, and that UK Googlers were just there to provide marketing 'support', undermines your assertion.
Because in fact, the UK employees have titles like "Sales manager", and publicly describe their roles as negotiating sales, making sales, closing deals.
If that is true, then the sales occur in the UK, regardless of the fact to whom the invoice payment was addressed.
Google is being asked to explain the discrepancy between their testimony before Parliament (sales are negotiated and closed by Google Ireland employees), and the apparent contrary facts (sales are negotiated and closed by Google UK employees).
Perjury before Parliament is a right matter for the Parliament to investigate.
mark-t wrote: ""life as we know it" happens to be limited to life that originated on Earth."
They are not saying that, they are saying the opposite of that. That "life as we know it" here on Earth does not happen to be limited to life that originated on Earth, and that life not originated on Earth is, in fact, the life that we know.
It may very well be completely wrong, but the premise per the summary is not inherently illogical.
"Should I be paying taxes on what those items would cost me if I had to pay for them?"
Deminimis rules apply, but you are generally taxed-as-income on the compensation you receive in exchange for your labor.
That includes cash wages, health care benefits paid by your employer, 401k matching, car allowance if you are not driving miles for work purposes, $1,000/year worth of gym membership, or $5,000/year of food.
Would you do the job for only popcorn? Of course not. Would I take a lower wage if my employer paid my mortgage? Yes, and I should be taxed on that. Somewhere in between those extremes are what IRS Revenue Rulings define. And in this case, the IRS is taking a look at the changes in how companies provide food to employees, and is redefining the rules of what counts an "income".
I trust that the U.S. Government won't expropriate my bank account more than I trust that private Bitcoin servers won't get hacked.
Sleeping well is relative.
You are entirely mis-reading the proposed law, and it is not unconstitutional at all.
There would have been no search without a warrant, because this would not have been a governmental search. Therefore it would not have been unconstitutional. This would have been an employer asking an employee for information. It would not have been law enforcement or the employer going to Facebook and demanding the employee's information under the color of this law.
This law would have allowed the employer to ask the employee to voluntarily provide the information, because previously the law specifically disallowed the employer to ask.
This law would have returned to the status quo of several years ago, which is that the employer can ask the employee to voluntarily turn over certain information, or else employment is terminated.
I run corporate investigations, and the basic premise in at-will employment is "your continued employment is dependent on you answering our questions. You may choose to not answer them - that is your right; however, if you do not, it is our right to no longer employ you."
In at-will situations, that is allowed. You might disagree with that, but there is no constitutional implication here - it is a private employment issue between a company and an employee.
Per the OECD, the "Average annual hours actually worked per worker" in the United States has been around 1,800 hours per year for the last decade. (1,787 in 2011)