And IT departments having a choice but forcing windows on users deserve to be burned at the stake.
Not a small thing to rip all the wires out of the walls. Moving to an entirely new office-wide OS is a heavy lift.
And IT departments having a choice but forcing windows on users deserve to be burned at the stake.
Not a small thing to rip all the wires out of the walls. Moving to an entirely new office-wide OS is a heavy lift.
I’m just saying that cars can be fun and acting like they aren’t won’t get us anywhere.
Planes can be fun, too. Yachts can be fun. A spaceship to the Moon can be fun. But demanding the government give you a bunch of money to fund your Blue Origin vanity project goes a bit beyond "having fun".
people in this community act like cars are the bane of all evil
40k motor vehicle fatalities a year can take the blush off the rose.
I mean, the statement “those young women, or many of them” is already pretty objectifying.
It's describing them. Objectifying would be closer to "Those hot pieces of ass" or something equivalent. Reducing the individual to component parts.
But I also question what he can mean.
People posting their pictures on blast and then getting angry because you looked at them can seem a bit hypocritical. It's the low-key version of celebrities complaining about being famous.
Microsoft is one of the platforms raking in heaps of money from dumb companies trying to jump on the AI bandwagon.
True. But one of their biggest customers is OpenAI. A big part of Microsoft's investment in OpenAI comes in the form of free access to its data centers (which cost money to run, thus costing Microsoft in the short term). By taking advantage of OpenAI's non-profit status, Microsoft was able to write off a bunch of those losses early on as tax deductions.
But they're still losses.
Other firms using Microsoft to jump on the AI bandwagon might help make up the difference. But that's like saying "I'm only doing some of my own heroin, so I still come out ahead". Given the current rate of return on AI investments, the only truly correct investment value is $0.
You aren’t accounting for the opportunity cost of the taxes paid in the initial investment year.
If you're maxing out your contributions, it won't matter, except in so far as what you can earn on taxed income outside of the IRA account. That's going to be marginal relative to the contribution. And the compound returns inside the IRA make it meaningless.
What this means is Roth is the preferable savings method if you are in a lower marginal tax rate than you expect to be in retirement.
Unless you're going straight into a white shoe law firm or extraordinary paying tech job after you graduate, that's pretty much everyone. But even folks going into Fortune 500 companies typically start in the $60-80k/year range and climb up from there.
If the marginal tax rate was the same when you invest and retire then the difference between Roth and traditional would be nil.
The amount of money you have in the fund is going to be much larger.
Say I invest $5000/year up front and get a 10% return for 40 years. I'm looking at putting in $200,000 over that time and taking out $2.2M.
Assuming the tax rate is 25% for each of those years, I paid $50k in taxes to invest that initial $200k. But I get the $2.2M back tax-free.
If I put the $200k in tax-deferred, I have to pay $550k to get my balance out again.
Now, we can argue that I could put the $400/year in deferred taxes into a taxable savings account. And maybe we get clever by shielding that investment from taxation annually because we just shove it all in Microsoft or Berkshire B and let it ride. That nets me another $177k over 40 years, assuming the same rate of return (for which I'm still on the hook at 15% long term gains rate - so really only $150k).
The ROTH is $350k better. That's the whole reason the fund exists. It's another accounting gimmick to give wealthy people a stealth tax cut. Only suckers put their money in Trad IRAs.
I think it really comes down to your view on future tax rates.
Unless you're banking on a 0% tax, the ROTH is hard to beat. Compound that by the Traditional IRA being taxed at the normal rate rather than the capital gains rate, and there's very little reason to use it unless you're really bullish on tax cuts in the long term.
They're seeing a flood of new investment, but they're also absorbing huge losses from within their AI divisions.
The profits they're reaping are in other sectors.
They're racking in a ton of investment case on AI. I'm sure there's also a slew of government contracts that keep this beast afloat.
But in terms of real value added to the economy? This seems like its just another Wall Street bubble waiting to pop.
The complaint is not with the consumer grade home rolled models.