In the US you would just get charged with resisting arrest. This is what happens when they ask for your ID and you refuse to give it to them. You wont be convicted but the fact that you can be arrested for resisting arrest without committing any crime is a problem
the important thing everyone misses is that these platforms claim protection from liability on what is post because they claim they dont control what users post. So they user the 1st amendment and claim to just be a platform for everyone to speak but then they choose who gets to speak. If the new york times posts a libelous article written by a freelancer they still get sued because they choose to run the article. How is it different with facebook if they are choosing who can be members?
the argument they made is the money is temporary. After a few years the federal money goes away and the state has to foot the entire bill so they would rather just refuse the program entirely. This is their public reasoning but the reality is more that it is program proposed by Obama so they just want to refuse it on political principle
Anyone who thinks spending $10 instead of $1, so that you can book the expense (presumably for a tax write-off which might save you 30%... MAYBE?) needs to stay away from Finances.
You can typically take the full depreciation in the year you purchased the equipment under IRS Section 179, up to a limit which varies depending on which way the wind is blowing in Congress. For 2018 the limit is $1MM. Whether or not its more beneficial to you to take the depreciation over time is a question for your accountant—technically if you later sell the equipment you're supposed to recapture the revenue from the sale for tax purposes.
when you price cap what you are doing is telling shop keepers and warehouse owners that there is no purpose to risk your safety and open back up until things return to normal because you cant make extra profit so they just stay home and no one gets the needed supplies. When you let them profit at least those with money get supplies. The choices really are either no one gets supplies with price caps or only those with money get supplies when gouging is allowed. If supply was capable of reaching everyone then prices would quickly return to normal. There is no fair system of delivering limited supply and high demand without raising prices. If you come up with one please claim your noble prize as you would have the solution to world hunger and poverty
> when you price cap what you are doing is telling shop keepers and warehouse owners that there is no purpose to risk your safety and open back up until things return to normal because you cant make extra profit
As a side note in this debate : the choice isn't between selfish people that wants to make money and nice caring people sharing water for free. You can have both of it : no price cap => free marketer and good samaritans supply water from the exterior of the zone AND the state helps poor people / those who can afford to buy more bottles can share them with their poor neighbors (might even pay them back later in their life if they make it : arrangement between people is not the concern of the water supplier).
If the company has millions of dollars in not just revenue but profits and a significant number of its employees are below poverty level and/or on welfare, is that fair? No, definitely not.
If the company's profit per employee is more than a certain percentage of a given employee's salary, is that fair? No, probably not.
If the company were to distribute a 10% salary bonus to all employees, would that bonus eliminate profits?
If the company were to distribute 10% of profits to all employees equally, how much difference against their salary would that change be?
It was all ideas and plans. They built machines that performed significantly worse than standard tests. Their idea was one machine to run virtually all blood tests with a few drops of blood, their final machine only ran a handful of tests and was so inaccurate that only reason the FDA did not shut them down instantly is they used a loophole to claim it was not a testing machine but just in house lab equipment to assist with testing or some nonsense that meant they did not need FDA to sign off on the machine. Holmes was just a smooth talker and convinced everyone, it also helped that she had major players on her board and even Bill Clinton was supporting her.
The one really weird thing i noticed about her is she never blinks. Watch her give talks and it is like a robot never blinking
That is not how any market works. Just because your customers have more money does not change the supply or demand for your product. A luxury apartment fetches a high price because there is demand from tenants willing to pay the luxury price. No one is going to pay more for the same apartment unless there is more demand for apartments than there is supply like you have in NYC and SF. More income causes prices to rise because people start outbidding each other for everything. Why sell your house for 100k when someone else is offering 120k
This is exactly how the market works and will continue to as long as humans are involved.
First hand experience here that seems to escape the engineering brethren that have never glimpsed into sales: The same exact product is sold to every customer at a different price. Yes sometimes there is a higher demand which might push price a tad but most of the time there is not. I always enjoy when people on HN complain that so-and-so doesn't publish pricing on their website. Of course not, because then they would lower their revenue. It also removes leverage, sometimes it makes sense to sell something at a lower cost today to negotiate some terms, and then down the road either sell at volume or raise the price. Sometimes you just like someone and give them a discount. Oh its the government? Yea raise the price a LOT. etc etc.
You should see how the rent goes up in military towns every time our BAH goes up. If everyone knows the tenants are receiving more money the general price for rents will tend to go up.
This might be the unintended consequences of a wage/ price spiral.
If I remember correctly, there's no benefit to the soldier involved if they choose an apartment that only costs half of the Basic Allowance for Housing - they don't get to keep the surplus.
No, they get to keep any left over money...if there is any. One way owners can somewhat control who can rent property is by raising the rent to the point that it is unaffordable to junior enlisted servicemen.
Of course your customers having more money means that businesses will try to capture that excess, that's the foundation of price discrimination. The whole concept of coupons is that some customers with more money won't care enough about the price difference, so they'll ignore the coupons and pay full retail price while more price sensitive customers will use the coupon and pay less.
