Not only do taxes pass through to renters, very often they are substantially higher. In New York, for instance, there is a substantial school tax credit for homeowners not available to rental properties. In addition, some cities have a homestead property tax rate that is substantially lower than the commercial tax rate applicable to rental properties.
This is a bad analogy missing the point that ZeroFries was making. A car's lifespan is mostly determined by mileage. When a car is not being driven its condition and value is largely unchanged. It is not analogous to a vacant house. If you drive a car twice as much of the time it will have to be replaced nearly twice as soon.
>A car's lifespan is mostly determined by mileage.
This is far less true in regions with snow. Assuming you drive the vehicle in the winter, a non-trivial contribution to "wear and tear" on the car is rust which occurs even if the car isn't driven a lot. (Cars are far better in this respect than they used to be but rotted out fluid lines etc. is still very much a thing.)
I'm in the snowbelt and well aware of this. Mileage (at a given city/highway mix) is still the biggest factor presuming the car is getting some minimum duty cycle. I said "mostly," not that the number of winters is nontrivial.
If you only drive 5,000 miles a year, sure, but that's not typical.
Beyond using 10k/yr as a rule of thumb for average duty cycle mileage is a horrible indicator of vehicle wear. Engines are worn by cold start cycles, transmissions are worn by shifting, brakes get worn by stopping and suspension components get worn by potholes, etc.
Newish used cars with ~200k on them are usually good buys because often times it's someone who used it for work (salesperson, etc.) and just ground out the highway miles (which are nearly free from a wear and tear perspective)
Except I never made the claim that nominal mileage objectively indicates vehicle wear. All I'm claiming, is that mileage is the largest factor. It doesn't matter if your driving wears out a car in 300,000 miles and my driving burns out a car at 80,000 miles. Your miles are your miles and my miles are my miles.
If we somehow manage to magically share a car, it's not going to last a lot longer than if we're wearing out our own cars at our respective rates (mine faster than yours).
But you reinforce the point that the car sitting in the parking lot or garage is not simply an over-provisioned resource by reason of being idle. If your usage patterns are so different than mine it's unrealistic to expect a configuration where we would be able to share a car.
Car-sharing has many benefits, but a car is still worth more than two half-cars.
Austria did reserve the limited possibility of refusing enforcement of EAWs on its citizen for acts not punishable under Austrian law, but that's it; which is not much different from the optional non-execution provision available to all EU states.
It also has bilateral extradition treaties with other non-EU states including the USA, again, with some reservations for its own citizens. But to say Austria doesn't extradite its citizens is wrong. For most crimes, any other EU state can issue a warrant and have Austrian citizens arrested and summarily removed without any full-blown extradition proceeding.
That's why I mentioned that I'm not sure about extradition to other EU countries. Extradition of its own citizens to other non-EU countries is currently not possible.
1173. Extradition of Austrian nationals is not admissible pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 1 of the ARHG. The authorities mentioned that this provision has the rank of a constitutional provision and, as such, requires a 2/3 majority of Parliament to be amended. Nevertheless, as of January 1, 2009, Austria will be in a position to extradite its own nationals to other EU-Member States in accordance with Section 5 EU-JZG.
1174. Where extradition for ML is denied on the sole ground of nationality, the Austrian courts are competent under Article 65, paragraph 1, no. 1 of the StGB (jurisdiction over acts committed by Austrians abroad) and must conduct the proceedings in the same way as for any other criminal offense under national law. The Austrian courts also have explicit jurisdiction over terrorist acts and terrorist financing when the perpetrator is Austrian (Article 64, paragraph 1, nos. 9 and 10 of the StGB).
I can't from this whether you are asking an honest question or if you can't google "define:serviceable", or can't google "corn whiskey" and see the first result in either case.
Whiskey fresh out of the still ("white dog") is pretty rough. Whiskey with 30 days of attentive oaking isn't awful (I'll happily get fucked up on it), 90 days will be pretty decent.
It's not even remotely on the same scale. There are three massive utility-level flywheel deployments according to Wikipedia that provide 15 minutes of output.
Edit: Seems the purpose is purely frequency regulation, rather than storage per se.
> One of the most talented and diverse cities in the world, Sao Paulo is a hub for our operations throughout Latin America. Our teams make an impact by providing support to our communities, small and medium businesses and brands in the region.
And of course their Latin America VP is located in this office:
I suppose, but would you refer to General Electric and Telemundo in the same interchangeable way? Same difference. If I were applying to a job in GE's aviation research division, I wouldn't mail my application to Telemundo.
That's actually wrong at multiple levels; Telemundo is a division of NBCUniversal, a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast since 2013.
It would be an apt comparison, if you imagine that Comcast had a Latin American headquarters in Brazil, where Telemundo's Portuguese telenovelas have millions of viewers; it would be weak tea for NBCUniversal to then argue that Brazil had no jurisdiction over it and the programming it distributes there because the shows are produced in Florida and NBCUniversal has no employees there.
I early exercised at Twilio when the spread was pretty small.
The key is that you pay taxes on that spread. If you're early enough - I was roughly #25 - and do it early in your tenure, then you only have to come up with the cash to buy the shares and a minor tax bill. If I had waited until I left to execute, the spread would have been 12-15x. I know a few people who stayed 4 years to fully vest and then executed. I don't know detailed numbers but it sounded painful.
If/when Twilio eventually IPOs, then the ROI will be far better than any index fund.
(I don't know anything about the "if/when" as I haven't been inside in over 2 years.)
Okay; I don't know anything about Twilio in particular, but in the usual non-founder startup employee scenario, where you are busting your balls working crazy hours for less than you could get at a real company, you are already assuming a risk in the form of opportunity cost and job insecurity in exchange for equity; you would triple down on this risk by dumping your savings (or borrowings) into illiquid company stock at zero or nearly-zero discount?
How do you know there will ever be a spread? If your startup fails, your shares are worthless. Or better yet, your shares are diluted out of most of their value by several subsequent rounds of private equity, which generally you have no control over whatsoever, but which will certainly go to enrich the founders. Resulting in even more direct transfer of wealth of your investment, to the founders and venture capitalists.
I'm having trouble understanding why any startup employee would do this, as opposed to exercising stock options when they actually have value and ideally some liquidity. Yeah you have to pay taxes, but that's because you came out ahead.
I don't see anything other than a massive gamble. You've already staked enough of your future on one speculative start-up as an employee; why would you then put a big chunk of your own money at risk? An index fund has reliable long-term returns.
In my particular case, I had worked in the telecomm industry before and had a good understanding of the alternatives and felt that I understood where things were going and my prediction - still yet to be proven - was that they would win.
But you are right, it is yet another risk. At Twilio, the pay was awful but I felt the longer term risk/reward was worth it.
If I was with $startup and the strike price was $texas-sized, I wouldn't do it while the shares were still illiquid because executing would be so much.
I early exercised my CloudFlare stock as soon as I got it. As a result, I had 0 taxable gain at that point, and if the company eventually exits, my gains will be long term capital gains, AND they will be gains in whatever state I'm resident in at the time (exceedingly unlikely to be California -- Washington, for instance, has 0% income tax, no tax on capital gains, and no AMT, plus (outside Seattle) I can afford to buy a house.)
At some companies it is in the standard offer letter. Unless you are coming in very senior or very early (or both, really) you are unlikely to get a modified option grant, other than just number of shares negotiations.
IMO the gold standard here is to issue actual founder shares as long as possible (up to and possibly past series a) and then to do options with early exercise and extended validity, and of course complete transparency on all the numbers.
It may be that a company has done very well but hasn't raised more money to bump up the present market value of the stock. In this case you would want to exercise early so that the clock starts for capital gains in the event of liquidity.
