Stack Exchange
log in

Barmar

 Discussion on answer by Barmar: Is bu…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
Barmar
Fri 22:53
@Questor That's the whole "don't let the tax tail wag the earnings dog" idea. If you happen to have some loser stocks in your portfolio, selling them when you're going to incur some other gain can be a good idea. You were going to sell them eventually anyway. But you don't sell a stock that might potentially rebound just because it's temporarily down and you can offset a gain.
Barmar
Fri 22:53
You still misunderstand the question. He doesn't already have these stocks in his portfolio, he's buying them now in order to harvest the losses when he sells the index fund. The fund has presumably been accumulating gains for years, he's not going to be able to generate enough losses now to offset them.
Barmar
Fri 22:53
@BenVoigt If the purpose is to offset the tax from selling the index fund, why would you do that? It will just increase the tax. OTOH, you might choose to sell one of these stocks instead of the index fund, if it has less gain than the fund. But in that case, why didn't you just keep the cash in the bank? Don't buy stocks if you expect to have a need for cash soon.
Barmar
Fri 22:53
@GranBurguesa And I think you misunderstand DI -- it's an alternative to buying an index fund, not something you do to mitigate the tax implications of owning the index fund. I still say that just selling one stock that dropped will not significantly offset the tax from selling the fund.
Barmar
Fri 22:53
@DonQuiKong I still think the strategy suggested in the question is crazy, and my answer stands. If you can afford to do it effectively you don't need to do it at all.
Barmar
Fri 22:53
Now I see your point -- buying a bunch of separate stocks allows you to sell them separately. Of course, that's the cost/benefit calculus you must apply when deciding between funds and individual stocks in the first place. Unless you have lots of money to invest, it's hard to buy a range of individual stocks with sufficient diversification.
Barmar
Fri 22:53
@Kvothe It's not a "diversified portfolio" -- that's what they have in the index fund. They're just going to buy a few stocks with some spare money they have lying around. So unless they have 10's of thousands of dollars sitting idle, they won't be able to buy enough to diversify and be able to get much loss when they sell. And if they have that cash, why would they need to sell the index fund? Nothing really fits.
Barmar
Fri 22:53
But if none of them lose enough value, the plan fails. That's why I describe it as "hoping" -- you need some to lose value to achieve your goal. And the goal is misguided in the first place.
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: Have …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Barmar
Thu 15:47
Surprise is very dependent on individual knowledge and experience. A layman may be surprised by a weather event that a meteorologist expected. Quantum mechanical phenomena are surprising to laymen, but not not to physicists.
 

 Discussion on question by Blue: Does …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Barmar
Jul 22 08:54
Good point. Last Thursdayism denies the history that we see evidence of, and there's no way to disprove it. And the same logic means we can't prove the existence of time at all.
Barmar
Jul 22 08:54
Time was causing changes to material objects long before there were humans to experience it.
 

 Discussion on answer by Barmar: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Barmar
Jul 18 01:59
@MichaelHall Right, that's presumably what the "unincorporated charitable associations" classification refers to.
Barmar
Jul 18 01:59
Done, I added the subsections that I've quoted.
Barmar
Jul 18 01:59
'In this Act “institution” means an institution whether incorporated or not, and includes a trust or undertaking.' If it's a trust then it will have trustees by definition. But it could be a corporation, then it will have officers. Or it might not be incorporated at all, like your club.
Barmar
Jul 18 01:59
What is the context of your question? Are you wondering how to set up a charity, or how to determine whether someone asking for a donation is a valid charity? For the latter, the Charity Commision maintains a list.
Barmar
Jul 18 01:59
I didn't see anything obvious. It presumably has to be a legal entity, like a corporation or trust. So there will be officers, trustees, etc.
Barmar
Jul 18 01:59
Earlier in the act it says a charity is "an institution which is established for charitable purposes only". So if your club also has other purposes (e.g. a book club) then it's not a charity.
 

 Discussion on question by WanderingLi…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Barmar
Jul 2 02:28
It's not uncommon to anthropomorphize computer software.
 

 Discussion on question by WoJ: Why is…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Barmar
Jul 1 01:29
I think this is a reaction to the way Vietnam veterans were treated. This was a very unpopular war, and many people took this out the soldiers when they returned. This has since been seen to have been unfair, as it wasn't their choice that we were in the war, and many of them were drafted to fight. So now we honor veterans regardless of our opinion of the government that ordered them to participate.
 

 Discussion on question by Gingerly: T…

Imported from a comment discussion on ell.stackexchange.com/qu...
Barmar
Jun 16 20:23
@TimR Even without "tribulations", "trial" doesn't always refer to a legal proceeding. E.g. the trials of Hercules, or trials in a sports competition.
Barmar
Jun 16 20:23
Could this be a kind of malaphor? "in cold" means cold weather, while "in heat" means ovulating and ready to copulate.
 

 Discussion on question by gaazkam: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Barmar
Jun 12 22:28
I think argument 1 is the main answer. There's more to gender than just your genitals and XX vs XY chromosomes, it includes complex personality features that can't be determined objectively (especially at birth).
 

 Discussion on question by PMF: "Hirin…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Barmar
Jun 5 03:27
@NeilMeyer And no one is forcing them to work, just compensate for not doing what they agreed to do.
Barmar
Jun 5 03:27
@NeilMeyer It's not "forcing" if they volunteer in the first place.
Barmar
Jun 5 03:27
@NeilMeyer Likening someone doing something they voluntarily agreed to do with involuntary slavery seems very inappropriate.
 

 Discussion on question by sumit garg:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Barmar
May 28 04:55
A "fault" is a difference between required behavior and actual behavior. There's no specification of the required behavior of the universe, so how can it have faults? The universe is what it is.
 

 Discussion on question by Alex Snappe…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Barmar
May 24 09:09
@EdwinAshworth Unless this is common in BrE, it seems like a mistake to me.
Barmar
May 24 09:09
"I am legend" always seemed like a stylized use in a set phrase, not a standard use, either.
Barmar
May 24 09:09
To the OP, where have you seen that used? It doesn't seem standard to me.
Barmar
May 24 09:09
@EdwinAshworth Isn't that referring to something like "Citizen Kane"?
 

 Discussion on question by Joel K: Com…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Barmar
May 22 23:48
It's like the trolley problem. Do you sacrifice the human shield to prevent the enemy from killing many more people?
Barmar
May 22 23:48
Laws are just words, they can't prevent people from violating them. People speed, steal, commit murder. And sometimes you have to make horrific choices.
Barmar
May 22 23:48
@JoeW Then you're allowing them to make themselves invulnerable again. Ideally you should try to avoid hitting the shield, but if you do, it's their fault, not yours.
Barmar
May 22 23:48
@JoelK You're also not allowed to use human shields. If your enemy does so, you have to decide whether to risk hurting the innocent victim in order to engage them.
 

 Discussion on question by Ashish Shuk…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Barmar
May 20 09:05
@Rushi That may have been what the OP intended, but they didn't write that clearly, and need to broaden their perspective.
Barmar
May 20 09:05
I never said anything about AI. My point is just that we can't determine the truth (to the extent that it's even possible) without using machines.
Barmar
May 20 09:05
Human senses are severely limited. Without machines like microscopes and telescopes, we wouldn't know about the cellular world or the structure of the cosmos. Machines aren't the source of truth, they're just the source of additional information that we use to determine the truth more completely.
 

 Discussion on answer by Barmar: Can T…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Barmar
May 20 02:36
@bdb484 The question was already reopened before you posted the comment about reopening.
Barmar
May 20 02:36
@bdb484 I'm not sure what you're expecting me to write in my answer. POTUS can effectively do anything that SCOTUS and Congress don't stop him from doing. His abilities are not explicitly enumerated (the handful of powers mentioned in the Constitution are clearly not exhaustive).
Barmar
May 20 02:36
@bdb484 The court has not said that the unitary executive theory is incorrect. It has been used frequently without being struck down, so it's a de facto power of the President.
Barmar
May 20 02:36
@bdb484 I've added reference to the unitary executive theory, which Trump relies on for many of his far-reaching policies.
Barmar
May 20 02:36
I've reorganized the answer, I think it's clearer now.
Barmar
May 20 02:36
Are you distinguishing between Trump himself is investigating versus directing the Attorney General to start an investigation by the DOJ? @Jen
Barmar
May 20 02:36
Anyway, the question isn't whether his complaint actually has merit. He can direct the Justice Department to investigate, it's their job to determine whether there's actually a crime to be charged.
Barmar
May 20 02:36
But he's also ranting against Beyonce and Oprah. He's complaining about all these entertainers being paid without performing.
Barmar
May 20 02:36
@bdb484 I've added part of the relevant TS. He specifically said "Candidates aren't allowed to pay for endorsements".
 

 Discussion on answer by Barmar: Is te…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Barmar
Apr 30 21:07
@njzk2 Agreed. US employment laws are much more laissez-faire than European. The free market model leaves these things to negotiation between employers and employees. Also why our minimum wages are so low. Republicans prefer to be as hands-off as possible.
Barmar
Apr 30 21:07
@njzk2 That's one of the things that unions are for. Union contracts often include protections beyond those mandated by law.
Barmar
Apr 30 21:07
@R.M. In my experience as a salaried worker for 40+ years, I've rarely had to keep track of my hours (if I did i was for project tracking purposes, not related to pay). If you don't get hourly pay and track hours, how can you get overtime pay?
Barmar
Apr 30 21:07
@R.M. "Most exemption categories require exempt employees to be paid on a salary basis." So they're usually equivalent.