Yeah people don't seem to understand taxes wrt stock at all. RSUs are definitely taxed!
Only thing I can think of is they're thinking of options? Afaik those can be advantageous, tax-wise, because you are taxed when you exercise, not when they're granted or when they vest (this is my understanding
I could be wrong).
Search the Internet for RSU tax liability in the US. It's taxed as supplemental income and is subject to withholding.
Are you thinking of options? That's different
"stock grant" afaik almost always refers to an RSU grant/vest.
Because a foreign power influencing an election is fundamentally different than a domestic campaign. The foreign power has their own interests, which are potentially at odds with the interests of the electorate.
Ostensibly, if you campaign in country A and are a citizen of country A, then you're "in the same boat" as the electorate. Of course, with economic stratification this becomes increasingly less true (fast food worker may live in same country as $$$ donor, but they are effectively living under different policies).
from many years ago.
Post says 9/29/24...
As darkly humorous as this is, I believe "out of network" doesn't apply to ACA compliant health insurance for an ER visit
so even if this happened to a normie, it would ostensibly be covered.
Edit: added "ER".
What people choose to do with their own lives is kinda up to them
the proverbial self-inflicted gunshot wound is, well, self-inflicted.
It's the children, elderly, immunocompromised, etc. getting caught in the crossfire that's scary. (Not to mention the new breeding grounds for nasty variants.)
"South Korea as a nation dodged a bullet, but President Yoon may have shot himself in the foot," said Danny Russel, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute think tank in the United States.
I bet my man Danny came up with that line in the shower. I dig it.
It's completely context dependent; you're right that using male/female is appropriate for humans in certain contexts, e.g., medical usage ("Patient, a 47yo female, presented with..."). But it is
for cultural and historical reasons
generally considered inappropriate to refer to our fellow humans that way in conversation.
Re: mutt, fair enough. Bitch/stud are examples of how animal terms, when applied to humans, take on very different meanings. Purebred is afaik not specific to species, but it is wildly inappropriate to refer to people as such.
At the end of the day, the logic behind what is and is not appropriate has history behind it; animal terms have been used extensively to refer to subjugated peoples; it may be scientifically accurate but that doesn't mean that it's inoffensive.
Of course we're animals, but let's use some common sense wrt cultural norms here. A dog of mixed lineage is mutt, but it's completely inappropriate to refer to a multiracial person as such. A female dog is a bitch, a male is a stud; the sexism is pretty obvious when applied to humans. It's fine to talk about owning a dog; it's not ok to talk about owning another human (except perhaps children, in certain contexts).
Yes, we are animals too, but that doesn't mean we should talk about each other in the same way. (And I say this as a vegetarian who thinks we should treat all animals with significantly more respect than we currently do.)
Unless we want to use group pronouns like we do with animals.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly why referring to women as "females" is problematic
using male/female as nouns is fine for animals. Humans, not so much...
It could grip it by the husk.