Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

cbae cbae
  • Bruce Willis or Liam Neeson?

    , Ian2 wrote

    @Maddus Mattus: Don't get me wrong, I like Bruce and I like the work he does on this area but I have to say that in recent years IMO Liam has come out of left field hard and fast and taken the crown while Bruce was napping  ... is all ...

    When Brits say "out of left field", what kind of field is being referring to? Smiley

  • EU opportunity for good jobs < nepotism; albeit DE

    , ScanIAm wrote

    *snip*

    Oh, shut the f*ck up.

    Finally, a salient answer. Thanks.
    Smiley

  • EU opportunity for good jobs < nepotism; albeit DE

    , magicalclick wrote

    @cbae:

    FYI, your point two doesn't seem to be related to my point two. I wasn't talking about tax. I was talking about predicted transactions caused by the forced tax. The consequences of predicted transaction usually are bad all around.

    I'm talking about the transaction too. Somebody dumping parts of a large holding happen all the time. So what?

    As I said, it's not a forced tax. You do not have to accept any inheritance. If you want to keep the holdings, sell off part of it and pay the * tax.

    And if you happen to inherit a significant percentage of the stock and need to sell, you don't have to sell it all at once and cause the stock to plummet. Nobody is that stupid. You spread out the sales. As I said, you have at minimum 105 days to sell before you pay the tax liability and that's only if you happen to take ownership on Dec 31st of a given tax year.

  • Bruce Willis or Liam Neeson?

    Liam Neeson got his butt kicked in Excalibur.

  • EU opportunity for good jobs < nepotism; albeit DE

    , JohnAskew wrote

    *snip*

    This thread has nothing to do with taxes.

    It's about government corruption, appointing unqualified friends and relatives to government positions in the southern EU countries.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49146152

    Yes, but I only mentioned a specific kind of tax that would help to correct the "nepotistic" effect of passing ownership of a company in the form of stock from one generation to another.

  • EU opportunity for good jobs < nepotism; albeit DE

    , magicalclick wrote

    @cbae:

    Terrible terrible idea.

    1) you force tax on something of unstable value.

    2) like you said, people will sell large amount of inherited stock as "Predicted". That opens up so much problems, including making the stock very unstable.

    3) back to point one. Tax on something could potentially be zero is just ridiculous.

    1) Nobody forces you to accept an inheritance. You can disclaim it. And nobody forces you to take ownership of the inheritance on an exact date. You can choose to accept it on the day that the stock is not zero, and sell enough to cover the taxes on the entire amount. If you are afraid that the value is going to go to zero from the time that you accept the inheritance and the you are able to sell it, then you have the option to have the estate sell the stock first and just receive the proceeds as cash, which would then be taxed.

    2) You need only sell enough to cover the tax, and you never have fewer than 105 days to sell the stock before you pay Uncle Sam. Since you would also "inherit" the original cost basis of the stock, if you sold the stock below the cost basis price, you'd not only get the proceeds, you'd have loss carry over. This means you'd not only not have to pay any taxes on those stocks, you'd reduce your tax liability on other stock gains for the year. The basic principle behind this is that stocks should be taxed exactly the way it would be had the deceased sold the stock and gifted it to the beneficiary.

    As for stock stability, shareholders of a given stock aren't going to all die at once to cause instability to a stock. 

    3) The same thing happens if you sell a particular stock for a huge gain and then turn around and purchase another stock that ends up going to zero. You'll have a huge tax liability on what you sold, but what you ended up with is worthless. Sucks for you, but you'll have a nice loss carry over other years when you do sell stock for a profit.

  • .Net versioning question

    , BitFlipper wrote

    *snip*

    As I mentioned before, in my case it is not a problem because I'm only interested in a certain subset of methods, and while the new API versions will be adding new methods (and types), I don't care about those. I'm only interested in a core subset of methods that all versions contain. Remember I'm filtering out all methods I don't care about, which would cause each proxy class version to have the exact same set of methods that are available even in the oldest API.

    OIC

  • .Net versioning question

    @BitFlipper: The problem with your code is that if all versions of the Api implement the same interface, you'll have to change the existing interface to accommodate newer versions of the Api by adding methods to the common interface. Because older versions of the Api class won't implement code for any of the new methods of the modified interface, your program won't compile.

    What you can do is create a different interface for each specific version of the Api. In doing so, each interface for a particular version becomes a superset of the interface for the prior version.

    Because of the way C# handles multiple inheritance of interfaces, a single method declaration in a concrete class implements the method declared in EVERY version of the interface as long as the method signature is the same in all of those different interfaces. That means you can declare Api20 as implementing both IApi20 AND IApi10 and you only have to write the method code for Foo() once.

    So if you want to call a method that was declared as part of IApi10, you can cast your Api20 instance (or any future version of the Api for that matter) as IApi10 and it will still call the version of  the method for the instance.

    Try out the program in my prior post (the most recent one with code). It's actually a working console program. It will give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

  • .Net versioning question

    @BitFlipper: The proxy class generator uses a T4 template, I believe. You should be able to roll your own so you won't have to manually do anything.

    There are a few links to some resources in this thread on Stack Overflow:

    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1035722/how-can-i-customize-wcf-client-code-generation

     

  • EU opportunity for good jobs < nepotism; albeit DE

    @JohnAskew: I think stock shares that pass from the deceased to beneficiary should be taxed right away as inheritance tax. This will force inheritors of large equity positions in publicly traded companies to sell some of the stock to pay the tax liabilities. As Winston Churchill stated, the estate tax is "a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich". When the wealth of the rich is 90% held in stock, then it's not much of a corrective. The "step-up in basis" rule for stock essentially wipes out any tax liability for the beneficiaries since the cost basis for the stock is adjusted to the current fair market value when the shares exchange hands.