One of my more controversial opinions is that tax advantaged retirement accounts should be eliminated entirely.
Almost all of the advantages of them accrue to the top decile of income earners. Why should we have exceptions in the tax code just to help richer people amass more money?
It sounds like you don't know what "loss ratio" means in the context of an insurance company. Loss ratio is the % of premiums collected that are paid back out in claims. If the number is below 100%, then your core insurance business is profitable
Of course, this doesn't mean your company is. Insurance companies have many expenses beyond paid claims. But loss ratio should never get to 0% and, by definition, can't be negative. 72% is pretty good for a relatively new insurance business.
I'd like to point out that employer side taxes (all the things between "gross" and "super-gross" in your terminology) are very bad whether they are happening in France, the US or anywhere else.
The only purpose of levying them that way instead of as traditional taxes on the employee is to deceive employees as to their true effective tax rates. To the extent that these taxes are higher in France than they are in the US, it's only a demonstration that France's tax system is being more deceptive.
Reader was written using a bunch of proprietary Google tools, deployed on proprietary Google infrastructure and used a proprietary Google system for authentication.
It's hard to even imagine how it could have been split apart from the mothership at all.
If you're a startup you should seriously consider colocation for as many of your workloads as possible
The vast majority of startups do not succeed or fail based upon their ability to control their datacenter spend. They succeed or fail based upon their ability to attract customers and grow revenue. Colocating and managing your own servers instead of taking advantage of the ease of using the cloud will only be a distraction for almost all early stage companies.
My point is that the phrase has a history of being used to criminalize speech that most people would now see as being worthy of protection. For those using it today, the burden is really on the accuser to show that they aren't doing the same.
Did you know that the "fire in a crowded room" metaphor comes from Schenck v. United States in which Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr used the metaphor to defend the criminality of protesting the military draft?
I'm not sure if that's the kind of history you want to align yourself with.
Wait really? The email I got from them made it sound like it would roll over forever. I'm gonna have to go read the fine print now. That's a big bummer if you are correct.
I also use an AT&T share plan and they recently started rolling over unused data. So while I'm not getting money back I feel like I'm at least accruing something when I don't get close to my max.
Depending on your plan they might be doing the same for you now too?
Almost all of the advantages of them accrue to the top decile of income earners. Why should we have exceptions in the tax code just to help richer people amass more money?