This analysis is pretty weak. DoorDash is running a net loss overall - gross margin isn't covering their fixed costs - especially marketing to obtain customers. In their most recent 10-K https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1792789/0001..., they have a non-gaap measure contribution profit per order which is -0.8%. So yeah, it's not surprising that they're trying to increase fees.
You shouldn't be mean to the chatbot not because the chatbot is a sentient being as part of a soul-less corporation; but rather because when you become angry, you're more likely to disturb your own peace.
No, its made a choice clearly within its Constitutional power, you just don't like the choice. That's bot an abrogation of duty (there are lots of places you can make an argument for doing that, but this isn't one.)
Enforcement via FATCA was a last minute amendment to a 1,000 page bill. No one read it, and it was overly broad - meant to capture people in the US hiding cash offshore but instead captured people who live outside the US and legitimately have local bank accounts.
If taxes were done on a cash basis, I would then be able to defer taxes on investments for years until I liquidate the investment. Governments generally have an interest in receiving tax revenue much faster than that both to ensure that they actually receive the tax revenue as well as they want to fund operations ongoing.
>> If taxes were done on a cash basis, I would then be able to defer taxes on investments for years until I liquidate the investment
You can defer taxes on investments for years until you liquidate the investment. Buy stock in a company or fund that does not pay dividends. You do not owe taxes until you sell the stock.
The US government's interests are constrained by the US Constitution, which limits the type of taxes the government can impose.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government has to use a cash basis for levying taxes.
Sixteenth Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The point is that it's not "income" until you actually receive it. Money you've borrowed is not "income". It is a liability, whether or not you've used another asset as collateral. Property you own outright is not "income", either.
It can get tricky quickly. Imo there are two solutions here. First option is to count it as income that then gets written off as a business expense. Second is to flesh out what fully collateralized means to better express it as an alternative to selling something. I think the first option makes sense. There are many scenarios where businesses will take fully collateralized loans and then reinvest the proceeds, that shouldn't be taxed. But if the loans are just turned into profit they should be.
Higher tariffs leads to less overall supply in the domestic market which leads to higher prices for consumers. Higher prices for consumers leads to grumpy consumers at the people who supported the tariff in the first place.
Moreover, longer term tariffs leads to domestic suppliers not being as efficient and hence fall behind international competition. Thus, domestic consumers get garbage cars and become grumpy at the people who supported the tariff in the first place.
So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? Is that really a standard you want to set? Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?
> So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to?
“Private company” is not a magic phrase that makes you unaccountable for your actions. And governments already spend everyone’s time, money and resources to require companies to unwillingly serve protected classes.
> Is that really a standard you want to set?
Yes. What is the standard you want to set? Do you want to allow monopolies to discriminate you because you are of wrong ethnicity, gender or nationality? Do you want to live in a world where you are unable to connect your house to utilities because you are Indian or a woman?
> Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?
No, nobody cares about your private blog. It is not a monopoly whose market cap is comparable to the combined market cap of all domestic companies in Netherlands.
So I'm struggling to figure out what argument you're making. Youtube b/c they are a "monopoly" - which is not well defined here - must host everyone's garbage - including advertising, penis pills, and porn without discrimination - and also must be forced to do business with rapists, murderers, and anyone else even if it's negative on their brand?
In the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes - but that is actually a rather limited set of circumstances - and based on the wedding cake cases doesn't apply to LGBT people. But accused rapist isn't a protected class the last time I checked.
So do you support protections that apply to LGBT people or would you also ridicule them with your penis pills example that “obviously” shows that such protections can’t work? I am completely baffled by your stance and I don’t see any coherence in it.
You said it yourself: “in the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes”. Yet we don’t see a constant stream of porn and penis pills on YouTube.
Just say that you want accused rapists to suffer. Why do you come up with those weird roundabout arguments about penis pills?
My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service.
The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content because (1) that's an overstep of the governments ability to regulate speech (2) a taking of resources from a private company to force them to carry someone else's speech (3) impractical because tech companies would not be able to separate spam from political speech.
In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
> My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service.
And in case of employment in many countries you can’t be fired unless there is a just cause. The same thing with important services that cannot be denied at will, eg buying drugs at a pharmacy. There are many protections in many countries in many spheres of life that go beyond the color of your skin and your pronouns; and those countries are doing okay.
> The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content
> In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
What about the government deciding who should be published on YouTube or in a newspaper? What about the government deciding who should be able to watch or read stuff? Wouldn’t it be scary? Why? Isn’t because the government is a huge powerful monopole? I don’t want my life to be governed by a will of a huge powerful monopoly, even if it’s democratically governed and especially if it’s not even that.
> And in case of employment in many countries you can’t be fired unless there is a just cause. The same thing with important services that cannot be denied at will, eg buying drugs at a pharmacy. There are many protections in many countries in many spheres of life that go beyond the color of your skin and your pronouns; and those countries are doing okay.
Cool - but you didn't propose anything? Are you calling Russel Brand an employee of YouTube who deserves labor protection? Does YouTube get to fire Russel if he doesn't get enough views or stars? Does YouTube have to employ everyone? Do they pay FICA taxes on his earnings?
> What about the government deciding who should be published on YouTube or in a newspaper? What about the government deciding who should be able to watch or read stuff? Wouldn’t it be scary? Why? Isn’t because the government is a huge powerful monopole? I don’t want my life to be governed by a will of a huge powerful monopoly, even if it’s democratically governed and especially if it’s not even that.
That's my point - I don't want the government making speech decisions - and it's expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment. Google isn't a government entity and I don't want them to be one. They don't have police powers - and I'm certainly not giving it to them. The government does have police powers and if not restrained can not only fire you, but throw you in jail and worse.
If they're a monopoly engaging in anti-competitive behavior, beat them up over that. If you think there's a better way, build a competitor. But don't go giving the government more power to regulate speech.
Indeed, I didn’t. I just said that we should treat Google with at least the same scrutiny we treat the government. I didn’t say that porn should be allowed on YouTube. I didn’t say that Russel Brand is a YouTube employee. That’s all your weird imagination.
Employers and clients of private companies are protected all over the world for various reasons and it doesn’t result in weird problems you come up with. Should black people be Google employees to not get racially discriminated for using YouTube? No. It is a protected class. Should Germans be employed at a pharmacy to get the right to buy drugs? No. It’s a law that they can get it without any discrimination. I am talking about very basic things that already exist and we can’t even get past that in our discussion.
> Google isn't a government entity and I don't want them to be one.
> They don't have police powers
I really can’t see much difference between Google banning me on monopolistic YouTube or the government banning me on monopolistic StateTube. You aren’t getting in jail in either case. Actually, there is one difference: StateTube would at least be governed by a democratically elected body.
I hope we both at least can agree that having StateTube as a de facto monopoly would be bad. So why should YouTube, that seems clearly worse, be considered good?
In what ways are newspapers a public forum? I can start printing a newspaper today and I don't have to publish your articles or your letters to the editors. They are absolutely private institutions.
Bank, payroll, and tax integration on the lock in front. Also, QuickBooks is really easy to get going for non-accountants and historically at least, their support was really good. That's what really made them really popular.
QuickBooks desktop isn't really a supported platform anymore. Most people have migrated to QuickBooks Online and their accountant has a login to their account.
The right choice for Iran is to stay close enough to completion of a bomb that it's a very credible threat to stave off US regime change; while staying far enough away to not provoke Israel into a preemptive attack. So it's not a technology calculation, but a geo political one.
