|
my new invention is a hot air balloon to be towed around by a self-driving car while the car's owner floats serenely overhead, it will disrupt both transport and navigation and cause countless deaths
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/913936019832971269 Well that's a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Credit Karma had free tax returns this last season. No disasters yet AFAICT.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/technology/uber-travis-kalanick-board.html This video recorded yesterday of Kalanick in the Uber Board Room: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKMNPQ35OUc
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
The actual appointees seem… not awful? Certainly not the kind of appointee I expect from Kalanick, given that they have experience with things like actual corporate governance and securities law and such and seem like the types who will actually agree with some of the other board members over him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
eschaton posted:The actual appointees seem… not awful? Certainly not the kind of appointee I expect from Kalanick, given that they have experience with things like actual corporate governance and securities law and such and seem like the types who will actually agree with some of the other board members over him. Ursula Burns is pretty good, Thain has had questionable judgment in the past. Remember he's the dude who spent north of $1MM refurbishing his office and a couple rooms after a massive bailout and forced merger following the mortgage crisis. He's not dumb, he understands how to run a company and he is highly unlikely to contribute to the problems Uber has been having - but he's no prince either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Credit Karma had free tax returns this last season. No disasters yet AFAICT. You mean except for all the people that immediately recognized it cocked their taxes up so they stopped and used something else? I remember reading tons of incidences of this around tax season this year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
My results were the same as TurboTax, I ran them both through. I picked the free one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
turbotax is free unless you're rich enough to itemize and then you should use a cpa anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
"Rich enough" to itemize includes pretty much any single person making more than $100k in California.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Steve French posted:"Rich enough" to itemize includes pretty much any single person making more than $100k in California. So get a cpa with your $100k.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So get a cpa with your $100k. But why Like if you are itemizing sure you can probably afford one, but it doesn't mean you'd actually benefit enough to justify the added expense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
My plan is to undercut the existing commercial services for the whole level below itemization, then sell off to the government for pennies, to absolutely kill off the lobbying that prevents the IRS handling taxes for 95% of Americans. Next I need to figure out how to similarly disrupt the school choice movement and fix school resegregation. Bussr. fishmech posted:https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/913936019832971269 I don't understand what this means. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My plan is to undercut the existing commercial services for the whole level below itemization, then sell off to the government for pennies, to absolutely kill off the lobbying that prevents the IRS handling taxes for 95% of Americans. Diversity school tax credits. You're welcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Steve French posted:But why Because you can obviously afford it with your six-figure income? The IRS program to try to ensure there's free filing capability is intended for people with $62,000 a year income or less, essentially 125% the median household income in this country, and a lot of the companies' offerings cut off below that, closer to the median household income. You're well outside that range and the free version of these tax programs only exist at all through IRS armtwisting, they'd happily charge everyone the whole $80 a year every year (I think that's the full featured TurboTax for home use) if they could get away with it. The software simply isn't as capable as a trained tax attorney is of recognizing when some deduction you try to take is bullshit, and obviously if you do too many things wrong you're going to be liable for audits and all sorts of penalties. You can't be thinking of it in terms of "he's saving me $x,000 this year", it's about "he's potentially saving me from having my life made a living hell by audits because I misunderstood what I could take".
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Steve French posted:But why For any individual year - you probably won't benefit from the actual tax preparation. But any decent CPA will discuss goals with you can come up with strategies to maximize tax savings for future years. This is a relationship, not a service you use once a year and then pick someone else the following year. You probably aren't even aware of 100% legitimate things you could be doing to save on your taxes. The tax code is that (intentionally) complicated so to me it makes sense to go to someone who's job it is to know that and keep up to date on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
To be clear: I was putting forth a hypothetical young single person living in CA with a stupidly simple tax situation that would want to itemize solely because their state income tax exceeds the standard deduction. I was not describing *my* situation, which is a good bit more complex and I probably should talk to a CPA! My point was that the tradeoff between Turbo Tax and CPA has more to do with tax complexity than it does level of income, and there are a significant number of people who itemize deductions with stupidly simple tax situations. Motronic, your point is taken, though it applies as well to people who don't itemize deductions
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
i grow to an immense size and fart a pyroclastic cloud that lays waste to silicon valley and ushers in a new golden age of mankind now that all the nerds are dead
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:i grow to an immense size and fart a pyroclastic cloud that lays waste to silicon valley and ushers in a new golden age of mankind now that all the nerds are dead Halfway there...
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Because you can obviously afford it with your six-figure income? The IRS program to try to ensure there's free filing capability is intended for people with $62,000 a year income or less, essentially 125% the median household income in this country, Don't ever have kids. Not some sort of  , but those free-file programs are like "ooh, more than 2 dependents? cough up $15 for the deluxe version!"The leasing talk yesterday reminded me of an industry that could use some shaking up. Introducing 'dealr', where you pay what the dealer pays! dealr hires independent contractors to go to auto auctions and find the car you're looking for, then bid on it up to the price you set! You pay what you bid + a modest transaction fee. I've bought a few cars that way, but obviously the old boy's club loves shutting them out whenever they can. It's generally done by small lots who are hurting and could use those extra sales. I don't think it's viable for a number of reasons, even if you ignore the fact that every dealer in every state will instantly call their pocket congressman to get it outlawed at every level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
I make between 62.5K and 100K so tell me what to do Right now I use the H&R Block Software, is there anything I could be missing out by using that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:I make between 62.5K and 100K so tell me what to do Yeah, you could be using TurboTax and trying to deduct your entire house and two telsas as business expenses
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Maybe we can build an app to find candidates who want to fill one of Uber's many vacant positions!  Exclusive: Uber's UK boss quits as firm battles to keep London license - email quote:Uber’s Northern European Manager Jo Bertram will leave the firm in the next few weeks, according to an email sent to staff seen by Reuters. She said the firm, valued at around $70 billion, needed a replacement in the region to tackle the issues it faces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Speaking of Uber, thing's been pretty quiet here but lately the regular cabbies started going nuts. There were some attacks on Uber drivers and finally they set up a roadblock on the main road to the airport. I wonder why. Oh wait, a newspaper did a test just a week ago and taxis were up to twice more expensive to go city->airport and up to 3 times more in the opposite direction because they have a monopoly there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
I'm sure that's it and the airport doesn't charge a fee for being able to enter the taxi queue, which Uber/co don't pay since they just skip it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Well, it's not like Uber isn't disrupting a monopoly, which is good. It's just a shame they're going about it in the manner that they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Well, it's not like Uber isn't disrupting a monopoly, which is good. It's just a shame they're going about it in the manner that they are. i dunno if disrupting is the proper word, more like replacing since they want to be the monopoly themselves
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Speaking of Uber, thing's been pretty quiet here but lately the regular cabbies started going nuts. There were some attacks on Uber drivers and finally they set up a roadblock on the main road to the airport. I wonder why. Oh wait, a newspaper did a test just a week ago and taxis were up to twice more expensive to go city->airport and up to 3 times more in the opposite direction because they have a monopoly there. A lot of that is probably the airport charging a fee to discourage the use of taxis and decrease congestion at the airport.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Besides Lyft there are a lot of homegrown competitors around the world. I think my point is really that the taxi industry by and large was so ripe for being shaken up that it was going to happen eventually, and it's just unfortunate it had to be Uber to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:A lot of that is probably the airport charging a fee to discourage the use of taxis and decrease congestion at the airport. And yeah I don't mean necessarily to endorse Uber. Although a friend of mine drove for them here and had no complaints and neither do I as a user. But there are some local competitors starting up too that will hopefully have a more sensible culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Well yeah but why do normal people have to pay for this racket? It's literally cheaper for me to fly from here to London than to take a taxi from the airport to the city. Because they want you to take the train out of the airport.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
I really doubt the price difference is due to airport surcharges. Uber really is a lot cheaper than taxis on a per mile / per minute basis. A lot of that is because they subsidize the rides, but that doesn't really matter to the consumer getting the cheaper ride. I have completely stopped using taxis and only use Lyft / Uber now if I need a taxi just because of how much cheaper and convenient they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Because they want you to take the train out of the airport. There's no train.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Because they want you to take the train out of the airport. (this is probably false but there's no way there's more than twenty or so and most of those are going to be on the East Coast) e: like seriously, if you had said "the bus" this would still have been a red flag for me but "the train" is at least ten times less plausible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:...are you not American, there are like ten airports with trains out of them in the entire goddamn nation. Last time I checked London wasn't in the US
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
I misread that "to London" as implying you were talking about Heathrow/Gatwick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Besides Lyft there are a lot of homegrown competitors around the world. the expensive taxi monopoly needed to be disrupted ... by a company that's much cheaper via a combination of underpaid labor and dumping VC money ... which they acquired because their explicit business plan was to become the new monopoly
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Moatman posted:Last time I checked London wasn't in the US I'm the moron 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Klyith posted:the expensive taxi monopoly needed to be disrupted ... by a company that's much cheaper via a combination of underpaid labor and dumping VC money ... which they acquired because their explicit business plan was to become the new monopoly The taxi monopoly was ripe for disruption because it existed on rent-seeking while delivering poor quality at high prices. I don't really understand the point you're making with the rest of it. Uber is bad? OK?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Mozi posted:The taxi monopoly was ripe for disruption because it existed on rent-seeking while delivering poor quality at high prices. Wrong in everything except possibly the poor quality. Taxis in almost all locales have regulated / mandated prices, as part of their license to operate. That license covers all those little things that Uber doesn't feel like paying for, such as background checks and way better insurance than personal car insurance. They're not rent-seeking. They're paying for their externalities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:48
|
|