If you've been selling everything at every vest event, then wash sale rules don't apply - essentially the IRS doesn't want you to claim a loss when you haven't effectively closed a position, and if you don't hold any shares, then you have closed the position. Your other two points - states don't do income tax calculations based on the grant, but only what vested while you lived/worked in the state in the respective year of the vesting. Basically you don't owe Michigan income tax for a given tax year if you didn't live or work in Michigan during that tax year.
I think it'd be good to visit with a CPA to cover some of these topics. I'm not saying definitely hire one but I think you may have misunderstandings of the tax codes.
About 160 million people either actively voted for this or couldn't be bothered to vote so ostensibly think this is ok. This is what the vast majority wants.
The article mentions mutual interest could be a subtype of fun, but they wanted to make a distinction between when getting together is the goal and when there's another objective beyond that.
For example with drinking, they seem to think there's enough of a difference between the friends that get together to have a few drinks and the friends that get together to do a wine tasting focused on a region of France.
They probably won't share how they did it, but there's been a lot of research over the past 6 months showing how you don't have to retrain the entire model to add in new sources. I know nothing about this stuff, but my limited understanding from blog posts is it's easier than anyone had thought to add in new data to a pre-existing model.
The fear with trying for temporary deflation is it will become an out of control feedback loop, because there aren't as many "reasonable" monetary tools to combat it as there are with inflation.
It's more the bigger investments that drive a lot of the economy that are the concern - think real estate and stocks. Why buy a $1 million home today if you'll be able to buy it from $980k next year, and maybe $965k the year after that? More importantly, why continue paying the mortgage on your million dollar home when it's likely never to be worth a million again? Why buy 10,000 shares of a company now, when in a few years you could buy 10,500 shares for the same price?
I think the issue in the US today is that increasing density within cities has become so absurdly difficult that we are making the "one-size-fits-all solution" be suburban sprawl.
My understanding of the comment is the way the parents would get the money is to liquidate something which would incur taxes, which will be a lot in taxes on $200k even with long term capital gains treatment.
Usually if you somehow end up in this kind of sales funnel, you get offered a ridiculously cheap first year subscription. Say $20 for first year, but then it's $12 a month after that. You call to cancel, and they'll keep dropping the price until it's back to that $2 or $3 a month.
Correct, but the "more than 60%" is including all forms of rent control. My main point is someone can be paying $3500 a month for a one bedroom apartment and it be considered a rent controlled unit.
Edit - put another way, there's a sort of implication that if a unit is "rent controlled" then it is cheap, and this is not necessarily the case in the SF rental market.
A key thing to note is that rent control in SF isn't quite what most people think of. The apartment itself is not locked to a specific price (which is how NYC rent control works, for example) but rather the lease between the landlord and master tenants can only increase so much per year.
For example you can have a rent controlled apartment renting for $500 a month, that tenant leaves, and the new tenants would sign for $3000 a month. There's no requirement the new master tenants would get the $500 a month. Whereas I believe in NYC's rent control the apartment itself is set at $500 a month, and anyone who moves in, that's what they pay.
Think of an example such as you'd like a better public school system in your district. If you live in a rural county in Oklahoma of 20k people, you could likely get on the school board without any opposition and start making changes. Vs trying to change anything about the public school system in San Francisco.
The point is that decisions you made in your 20's will unfortunately lock you out of potential options 30 years later (without making major sacrifices). So they're saying the best move for someone in their 20's is the move that gives the most number of options for the rest of their life.