madsbuch

45 ms·

121.
by madsbuch 3y ago
if you go abroad you most definitely rent out your owned apartment as you otherwise are fully tax liable in Denmark with a permanent dwelling. if you are on a long holiday, you still legally live in the unit. if you cannot rent it out you,
122.
by madsbuch 3y ago
Tangential to this: In Norway and Denmark (as the only countries AFAIK) there are laws stating that a unit needs to have inhabitants. Ie. it can not sit still on the market. If the owner does not live there, he has to rent it out. It baffle
123.
by madsbuch 3y ago
EU citizens love this attitude from Americans as they invest in REITs while sitting in their cheaper apartments. The EU states love it as they got to tax that income from US REITs. In Denmark we have "Bopælspligt" meaning that an
124.
by madsbuch 3y ago
I do believe that. But your choices has diminishing effects over long term. And also, in a meritocracy the "profit" needs to be congruent to the merits. I think there is a broad consensus that talent won't make you a billiona
125.
by madsbuch 3y ago
I have written this somewhere else here. it is quite simple: taxation that aligns with behavior goals and income / wealth distribution targets.
126.
by madsbuch 3y ago
I am sorry about that. please question my beliefs! I am just a bit in doubt on what belief you question? you can derive from my statements that I don't think the current landscape in the US is entirely meritocraric or democratic as a s
127.
by madsbuch 3y ago
That is exactly why we see DMA now: Equal opportunity.
128.
by madsbuch 3y ago
It is because this debate is not about your life, but the life of the masses.
129.
by madsbuch 3y ago
I would love to see the itemisation and deduction for this. In particular, how did you decide how much value was due to the publisher, movie studios, etc. vs. her? We can safely assume that she would have produced absolutely no value, had t
130.
by madsbuch 3y ago
I don't really understand this comment. I also feels it needlessly sets up a polarisation nobody asked for. I questioned the US paradoxes on philanthropy and meritocracy. For all I care, you can hold on to your "America first, wha
131.
by madsbuch 3y ago
this is a strawman. you can't eat gdp per capita for dinner. yes, US people produce more waetlh for rich people. but they don't take home that wealth. try to find some statistics around spending power https://x.com&#x2F
132.
by madsbuch 3y ago
This is a straw man: A police man can only ruin so many lives. He would have to be Santa Claus in order to harres the entire population of the US. A policeman does not have the same impact over peoples lives as, eg., Jeff Bezos.
133.
by madsbuch 3y ago
> All of your questions can easily be understood ... Then you should be able to make a well informed comment on the matter, as you clearly understand it. > This is [one reason] why nobody takes these suggestions seriously about person
134.
by madsbuch 3y ago
> They have (transitively) provided the company the original $125 to use in their operations. But that value already existed as an intrinsic property of the company (eg. NAV). What the market did was to unlock these money for the company
135.
by madsbuch 3y ago
I am talking about the value you provide as an investor - regardless of where you got the share. I agree that it is indifferent whether you buy it from the company (in an IPO or in later emissions) or on the secondary market. My point is
136.
by madsbuch 3y ago
> Apparently they can by giving it to the right entity at the right time. I want to understand this. If I buy a Novo Nordisk share on the market I never gave novo nordisk a single krone. My counter part is the seller (who rarely would be
137.
by madsbuch 3y ago
This is unfortunately an uninformed opinion that pollutes the debate. An example you probably should should think about: Who owns money and their value? What happens when the central banks decide to raise the interest rates to 20% and you
138.
by madsbuch 3y ago
The US political system is another discussion. Again, as an EU citizen, the two party system seems to be wildly un-democratic. In Denmark we have 10 parties represented in the parliament (in a country of 5.5million people). This forces deci
139.
by madsbuch 3y ago
> It's anti-meritocratic for someone to invest their money intelligently in the stock market? I like how you threw in the word "intelligently" like this investments was planned and thought out from the beginning ;) Thresho
140.
by madsbuch 3y ago
> this is the only one where commenters would come to express their discomfort towards this fact of capitalism Don't conflate an in-equal system with capitalism. That would be untrue and un-wise. Most people agree that a free market
141.
by madsbuch 3y ago
> ... I don't know if the title/discussions right now are doing it justice. I grew up and did my education in Denmark. Here we have another sentiment on philanthropy than the anglo world has. Generally I don't like when a
142.
by madsbuch 3y ago
No, this is a way of saying that the market is inefficient. When the profit margin is high it is an indication of an inefficient market. If the market would have been efficient competitors would have gotten in when they see the opportunity
143.
by madsbuch 3y ago
Funny, at least you won't get killed by the police ;)
144.
by madsbuch 3y ago
> The commission payment structure makes the device affordable/accessible to more people That is a weird conclusion, unless you think that reducing the profit margin would not give the same result.
145.
by madsbuch 3y ago
My guess is that the coal could come from wood? The heat could definitely come from nuclear power. However, the processing of the limestone might be more difficult. But then again, that also seems like insignificant emissions when the other
146.
by madsbuch 3y ago
Which are these inputs? Any why do they need to be fossil ?
147.
by madsbuch 3y ago
Do you have examples of these materials?
148.
by madsbuch 3y ago
You completely misrepresent me in your comments and you have really bad attitude. > The fraction of people in EU countries who just want to exist on social welfare and have no aspirations is miniscule. You insinuate that I was talking ab
149.
by madsbuch 3y ago
An idea: the advantage of the inattentiveness is better quality of rest time. however, that requires acceptance of these periods. according to Yuval Noah, the time requirement for hunting would be roughly 2 days a week.
150.
by madsbuch 3y ago
it would seems that striking is detrimental to the goal of attracting more Big Tech? it makes sense that a lot. of people are hired by It service companies, as these are not easily moved out. usually it is easier to get talent to move to an

More ›