Why does "home country" have tax priority over "sitting in" country? How does that make sense vs having the taxes paid in "sitting in" country instead of "home country"?

with perhaps the strongest argument being jurisdiction. What gives "home country" the legal right to claim taxes on income earned in "sitting country"?

and that's where things get complicated. In order to pay taxes in "sitting country" you need a "sitting tax ID number" and other admin, also if the taxes involve wage withholding, who does the withholding and ensures compliance, etc, etc.

How does this align, in the US, with state-level taxes? If you were born in MN and moved to FL, do you pay MN or FL state income taxes (noting that FL does not have state income tax)?

Is "home country" the state with the home office of the company which employs you, or the state you live in? Should employees of a California company pay California state income tax even when working remote from Texas (another no income tax state)? Or the classic Washington/Oregon divide?

yes, I know the stories of the amazing accuracy of horseback archers (mongol, native american, ...). Just saying that the 2-man thing may be more efficient than you give it credit for.

Interesting take on what "knowledge" means and what makes knowledge valuable.

If I understand "knowledge" as "information directly relevant to a technical problem", then:

- the knowledge which remains relevant to that problem will stay available to practitioners (i.e. the properties of a Gaussian distribution, from Gauss, 1809)

- the knowledge which is no longer relevant to that problem will probably be lost (how to compute the integral of a Gaussian using a slide rule. Slide rules first developed circa 1620, last used circa 1970)

In other words, yes, your point is profoundly true. Knowledge relevant to a specific task stays available, not relevant gets pruned quickly.

My question would be if we want to use that definition of relevant and that understanding of what drives value. i.e. I'm not asking if you are correct, I've just shown that you are correct. My question is if the assumptions/values which make this correct are assumptions/values we are comfortable with. In other words, is is wise?

yes I know adblocker, pihole, etc.

It's the law, it's the system, so of course that is what they are going to do.

Only under the assumption that the driver was trained in the US, to follow US traffic law, and is following that training.

For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

"The" supreme court, if one assumes a US-centric definition, comes with a lot of assumptions on the nature of law and the power structure of the various government branches. Which generally do not hold outside of the US and certainly not in France.

So yes, it is "a" supreme court, but that doesn't really help understanding, because it is not "the" supreme court.

perhaps that's an artifact of gold's recent spike in price, but perhaps the SP500 is also in the middle of a giant bubble.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1437/sp500-to-gold-ratio-chart

Go ahead, cherry-pick some other dates to tell the story you want!

The forgotten medieval habit of 'two sleeps'

And who knows, your view might be right.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41821933

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

So if I die in debt up to my eyeballs, and if I am sole signatory on those debts, I have only hurt my creditors, not my family.

caveats-- if my family was counting on the house and I have an unaffordable mortgage, then yes I have caused them harm. Likewise other irresponsible debts.

-- at the end of the chain, creditors are also people. It is their job to loan money at risk, so their loss is their problem, but this assumes I was dealing in good faith when I took the loan.