I took my business and my family out of the Northeast (we started in NYC) to Texas. It was like getting a 10% raise overnight, and I could buy property instead of rent. Property tax is high but it's a consumption tax, so it informed our decision of what kind of house to buy - and it doesn't penalize us for working harder.
Austin is one of the most expensive places in Texas but it's still peanuts compared to NYC or the Bay Area.
Austin may indeed be getting overrun with McMansions but guess who buys McMansions - middle class people moving up because of economic success. You and I may turn up our nose at them but it's a sign that things are happening as I certainly don't prefer halted new construction projects and people underwater on their mortgages.
None of this compares to moving to, say, Thailand, but I enjoy the first amendment.
It isn't EA's latest game - it's a beta test with rules and restrictions typical of beta tests.
The game doesn't come out until March. Being 'unable to log on' for three hours might be a worthy complaint after that.
In 2007 you could get 100 megabits from Cablevision. If you don't have that, probably your local borough council let in Time Warner and not Cablevision.
Why is it okay for the very wealthy to build yachts in space while poor people starve and wonder if they'll be able to afford the medication they need to stay alive?
Because buying medication for poor people does not in any way address the root cause. It creates a dependency on whatever system it is that bought them their medication.
Spaceships, on the other hand, at least presumably, might create an entire industry of space travel, which in turn will require spaceship builders, painters, repair-people, flight attendants, travel agents, parking garages, et cetera, all of whom can presumably afford medication more than whomever it is you suggest that wealthy people should buy medication for.
Of all the things wealthy people could do with their money, I'm much more excited about space yachts than I am about some guy buying an island condo or a plain old water yacht. Those things both support industries too, but they're not going to launch entire new sectors of the economy.
Sure, but that was also before tort and the idea of 'full liability' were in place. Prior to the LLC, big businesses could shield their investors and owners but small businesses had a hard time doing so - the LLC was a way to equalize that protection.
Enough people with enough resources will always find a way to protect themselves. If you got rid of LLCs, that wouldn't change - but your average wannabe entrepreneur would have a lot harder time of things because he hasn't got access to all the lawyers and accountants you'd need to achieve limited liability without an easy legal avenue.
You don't have to know a lot about corporate law to realize why it makes sense. The most you risk when you change jobs is your new salary (in the event that your new job sucks, you get laid off, or your employer goes under). Entrepreneurs gamble a lot more to get off the ground (like savings or loans from family and friends) so their risk is already quite a lot higher -- enable their customers or investors to repossess their houses and cars and you'll just have fewer people starting businesses and cede more of the market to bigger corporations.
Nah, Domestic Giraffe sounds cool, too.
+1 for an LLC in DE. I am originally from DE so set up our company there but now live in elsewhere and still keep my DE LLC.
DE is just very easy to do business with. They're responsive and they're inexpensive. If your needs are simple then you don't need to go the extra step of being an S-Corporation (this may not be advisable for other reasons; that's a decision that you should have an accountant and/or a tax lawyer for). But your taxes won't change - you'll still do personal income taxes and a schedule C as an LLC. No separate corporate taxes or corporate tax rate, but the 'down side' is that every dollar you make is taxed as your personal income. For a small business this is usually a fair trade off as you want to be able to put money in and take money out very easily.
This is what is so wrong with the US. Corporations were originally granted limited liability for investors in return for limited rights.
Corporations were not "granted" to anybody and certainly not in exchange for anything.
Corporate organization is done at the state level. Each state has different laws (though they typically have to accept 'foreign' entities, e.g. companies/corps from other states, if they want to do business in their state).
The federal government did not have some secret corporation power that it decided to bestow on people in exchange for something. States enabled people to form companies and corporations to further commerce. If everybody were personally liable for everything their company did (as opposed to, perhaps, limited/i> liability), nobody would run companies.
Naming a product to sell it in a commercial market has got nothing to do with internal release milestones, and you don't have to be a marketing expert to realize that 'Windows 11' doesn't sound especially cool, whereas 'X' or 'Wild Giraffe' both sound awesome.
The question is more ridiculous than the discrepancy.
And some people believe that having children or getting old (or both) entitles them to tell other people what to do because there might be an outside chance that their baby might get run over by a Camero.
That's true on your typical suburban road or city street. It is drastically less true on a highway where you don't have intersections, stop signs, or left turns. The biggest danger on a highway is not speed but speed differential, e.g. somebody going 40 when everyone else is going 65 or (more often) somebody going 65 when everyone else is going 75-80, aka 'usual interstate behavior.'
I live in Austin. This road is in the middle of nowhere and it's the sort of road where people are going to drive 80mph anyway.
Lawsuits only make up about 1-2% of the health care costs.
It's not the lawsuits. It's the insurance doctors (and now some nurses and PAs) are required to get to insure you against those lawsuits. This can be north of $100k/yr and in some cases (depending on the state) close to a quarter million a year for a surgeon.
Other than the fact that both organizations host "news content," they aren't comparable. Whether or not you approve of it, the WSJ is a traditional newspaper with "journalism" sections and "opinion" sections with different editors and standards.
HuffPo may contain journalism but it isn't the point. It's a combination rabble-rouser + echo chamber. You would never see a headline like theirs on a WSJ news article because it's repackaging it as commentary rather than news -- and even if that's a difficult line to keep track of for every news organization, HuffPo doesn't pretend to try. And why should they? Their audience doesn't seem to want them to.
Unions are democratic
If I don't have a choice about whether to join or not, the fact that you hold an election to decide who gets to be in charge doesn't make it democratic.
I don't have a beef with unions. I have a beef with any organization that is permitted to count me as a supporter and garnish my paycheck without even asking whether or not I would like to be a member. I don't care if you're saving baby unicorns. If you are, you should have no problem convincing me to join.
That's not even a relevant example.
According to you, poor people 'have to live' in benighted places where airplanes fly over them. Having an airport next door reduces property values. Whether or not you think it's stupid, and whether or not poor people fly has nothing to do with it.
Arguably, plopping down an airport will create more affordable housing, which is just the positive way of spinning "lower property values." If you don't want the noise, you can buy your way out, just like if you don't want to live in an apartment building, you can buy your way out. All of these things are luxuries. As you said, it's not like having airplanes flying over you is particularly terrible, if you grew up living with it.
But questions like yours are certainly open to dispute for any number of reasons. I'm merely pointing out that "justice" has got nothing to do with any of those reasons, because there is no "just" way to build an airport. You're just talking about serving one group of people's interests over another, and your basis for doing so is that they are poorer. If you put your airport in the middle of a bucolic planned community, you're going to destroy a lot more value than if you put it somewhere that values aren't all that high to begin with, so you're technically doing more economic damage. Is that "just"? It neither is nor isn't. Justice doesn't enter into it. It's purely a question of serving one group of people's legitimate self-interest over another's.
"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" -- James Coburn, in the finale of _The_President's_Analyst_