> If I’m employed in my home country, earning money there and paying taxes, what difference does it make if I happen to sit in another country?
Why does "home country" have tax priority over "sitting in" country? How does that make sense vs having the taxes paid in "sitting in" country instead of "home country"?
with perhaps the strongest argument being jurisdiction. What gives "home country" the legal right to claim taxes on income earned in "sitting country"?
and that's where things get complicated. In order to pay taxes in "sitting country" you need a "sitting tax ID number" and other admin, also if the taxes involve wage withholding, who does the withholding and ensures compliance, etc, etc.
How does this align, in the US, with state-level taxes? If you were born in MN and moved to FL, do you pay MN or FL state income taxes (noting that FL does not have state income tax)?
Is "home country" the state with the home office of the company which employs you, or the state you live in? Should employees of a California company pay California state income tax even when working remote from Texas (another no income tax state)? Or the classic Washington/Oregon divide?
> with perhaps the strongest argument being jurisdiction. What gives "home country" the legal right to claim taxes on income earned in "sitting country"?
Usually a treaty. At least here in Canada the government has tax treaties with most other countries whereby both countries agree the citizen should pay taxes to the country they reside in the majority of the year.
The relevant portion of the US-Japan treaty is Article 14(2). As the IRS explains:
> Paragraph 2 sets forth an exception to the general rule in paragraph 1 that employment
income may be taxed in the Contracting State where the employment is exercised. Under
paragraph 2, the Contracting State where the employment is exercised may not tax the income
from the employment if three conditions are satisfied: (1) the individual is present in the other
Contracting State for a period or periods not exceeding 183 days in any 12-month period that
begins or ends during the relevant (i.e., the year in which the services are performed) calendar
year; (2) the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of that
other Contracting State; and (3) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment that
the employer has in that other Contracting State. In order for the remuneration to be exempt
from tax in the source State, all three conditions must be satisfied. This exception is identical to
that set forth in the U.S. and OECD Models.
You get an archer with extra mobility AND the ability to focus on hitting his target while someone else does the steering AND armor AND a bigger carrying capacity (more quivers of arrows, ...)
yes, I know the stories of the amazing accuracy of horseback archers (mongol, native american, ...). Just saying that the 2-man thing may be more efficient than you give it credit for.
I think they are separated by around 1500 years, so I’m sure the Mongolian army would be scarier. But the Alexander-era Persians wouldn’t have that choice, right? For example stirrups and advances in composite bows (they’ve existed for a long time, but were high tech things, so I’m sure every culture iterated on the idea and 1500 years of iterations add up) probably made Mongolian horse archers a lot better than the options they had.
> I seriously doubt there's very much highly relevant old knowledge locked away somewhere.
Interesting take on what "knowledge" means and what makes knowledge valuable.
If I understand "knowledge" as "information directly relevant to a technical problem", then:
- the knowledge which remains relevant to that problem will stay available to practitioners (i.e. the properties of a Gaussian distribution, from Gauss, 1809)
- the knowledge which is no longer relevant to that problem will probably be lost (how to compute the integral of a Gaussian using a slide rule. Slide rules first developed circa 1620, last used circa 1970)
In other words, yes, your point is profoundly true. Knowledge relevant to a specific task stays available, not relevant gets pruned quickly.
My question would be if we want to use that definition of relevant and that understanding of what drives value. i.e. I'm not asking if you are correct, I've just shown that you are correct. My question is if the assumptions/values which make this correct are assumptions/values we are comfortable with. In other words, is is wise?
It's not just technical knowledge either: look at Shakespeare's works. They're centuries old, but there's absolutely no danger of those disappearing. Lots of old stuff is well-preserved and highly duplicated for easy access.
Yes. Those are the specific conventions that the betriebsrat (Workers Concil) decides, but this varies from company to company and state.
My point is, considering this specific arrangement of 7 hours a day/workday (35h), what would be the offset comparing this same company with 28h/week (4D) with another company not in that arrangement in scenarios where throughput per hour matters?
That seems odd to the point of uselessness, and does not match the required training I received in Germany from my work colleagues at Daimler prior to being able to sign out company cars.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__9.html seems to be the relevant law in Germany, which Google translates to "(1) Anyone wishing to turn must announce this clearly and in good time; direction indicators must be used."
Maybe the guy was talking about the reality, not the theory. From my autobahn travels it seems like the Germans don't know how to turn on the blinkers.
I think the moral of the story is that cars may or may not turn their blinkers on. If they do, the self-driving should catch that just as easily and expect the car to switch lanes (with extreme caution).
a) Check for the possibility of the maneuver;
b) signal the maneuver;
c) perform the maneuver.
However the signaling needs to be done in a way that it helps other road users to read and act according to your maneuver, so 3 seconds seems to be a good amount of time for that.
There are, on the other hand, situations where signaling the maneuver is also desirable even though the maneuver might not be possible yet: merging into a full lane, so vehicles might free up some space to let you merge.
As I mentioned in my other comment, 1 second is negligible, I would even dare to say that 3 seconds, is, too. For a computer it should not be, however.
It's what I was taught: you switch on your indicators when you have checked that you are clear to merge and you have effectively committed. I always assume that someone who has put their indicators in is going to move according to them, whether it's clear or not.
I don't doubt that it's the way you have been taught, but it doesn't make any sense. The whole point of blinkers/indicator lights in cars are to signal your intentions before you do them: if you're going to signal at the same time that you do the action you're signalling, you might as well not bother.
It is what I see in practice in Eastern Europe. They signal as they are shifting lanes. Even if they turn the blinker on and then start moving 1 second later, it could be considered the same thing as 1 second is negligible.
Thus "the indicator shows that you ARE moving." is correct, at least in practice.
It's the difference between actually purposefully blinking and blinking to avoid a fine. In the latter you just tap the blinker stalk as you're turning the wheel. If someone's trying to do a dangerousish turn (waiting for a line of cars to do an illegal U turn for example) they'll be blinking to signal intention most of the time.
I got my license in 2014, in Germany, and was taught to turn on the turn signal > check mirrors > turn your head to look over your shoulder and only then, when you're clear, do you merge.
Why does "home country" have tax priority over "sitting in" country? How does that make sense vs having the taxes paid in "sitting in" country instead of "home country"?
with perhaps the strongest argument being jurisdiction. What gives "home country" the legal right to claim taxes on income earned in "sitting country"?
and that's where things get complicated. In order to pay taxes in "sitting country" you need a "sitting tax ID number" and other admin, also if the taxes involve wage withholding, who does the withholding and ensures compliance, etc, etc.
How does this align, in the US, with state-level taxes? If you were born in MN and moved to FL, do you pay MN or FL state income taxes (noting that FL does not have state income tax)?
Is "home country" the state with the home office of the company which employs you, or the state you live in? Should employees of a California company pay California state income tax even when working remote from Texas (another no income tax state)? Or the classic Washington/Oregon divide?