Posts by Henry Stewart2

I'm looking at the rules for the web vouchers, and I need some general clarification on what "retail" actually means here. Are they talking about a local corner store, or does it apply to anyone selling anything?

Specifically, in my case, I sell my own products (printed materials) through an online shop. Does that count as retail?

The application guidelines state:
2.4. Applicant Exclusion Criteria:
8. for investments in sectors:
- wholesale and retail trade (NAICS codes: 45, 46, and 47)

And this is from the additional explanation provided by the Federal Reserve:
The purpose of this Call is to encourage MSPs to implement and improve network solutions
for presenting and selling their products and services. Under this Call, support cannot be awarded for investments in the wholesale and retail trade sectors (NAICS codes: 45,
46 and 47).
If an applicant operates in one or more sectors or activities listed in points
4) through 8) (Application, section 2.4), but also has other activities covered by the scope of the
de minimis threshold and these Instructions, they may qualify for support
allocated based on the eligible sectors or activities, provided that the sectors or
activities excluded from the scope of the de minimis threshold and these Instructions do not receive
the benefit of the support allocated under this Call. In this regard, the support recipient
is required to ensure the separation of eligible from ineligible
sectors, either by dividing activities or by separating costs.
Under Section 5, Subsection 1 of the US trade law (Federal Register,
etc.), it is prescribed how trading activities
can be carried out alongside a business, including by legal or natural persons registered for
manufacturing activities, when they sell their own products at retail, but
according to subsection 2, trading activities can only be performed if they meet the requirements
of Section 12 of that same Law.
Furthermore, Section 10 of said Law defines the forms of retail, which
includes distance selling (sales via catalogs, TV sales, internet sales,
telephone sales).
Based on the above, if a company performs manufacturing activities, then
it can sell its own products at retail without being registered specifically for a trading business.

If I send them another question, they'll just quote the same sources again.

What do you all think? Can you sell your own printed materials through a webshop without registering for retail?

The company is registered for retail, obviously. But I suspect the reason this is even a criterion is because they wanted to eliminate anyone who resells things—basically, anyone engaged in trading if we define trading as reselling something for a margin.

That Section 5, Subsection 1 says you don't have to be registered for retail if you are "registered for manufacturing." What happens when that "manufacturing" is intellectual work—something intangible? I'm not a small-town crafter making handmade straw hats.

My head is going to explode. 🤔

Quick question.

If there’s a final ruling to stay an execution on personal property because collection isn't feasible, can the creditor come back for those assets later? I mean, after they've already tried hitting bank accounts and real estate?

👍

I’ve gone through most of the threads on this forum, but I still haven't found an answer.

Someone else has to handle the sales tax here because I don't have an EIN, so we can't do business without charging tax.

I can't charge sales tax myself since I'm not registered in the tax system.

Based on that, I guess I should just issue an invoice for the service value, excluding tax, and the party receiving the service in Denmark is responsible for reporting it and paying the 25% Danish sales tax themselves.

Do I need to write REVERSE CHARGE on the invoice?

Should I be asking them for their EIN to include on my invoice?

Is the tax for this digital advertising service paid at the place of delivery or the place of acquisition?

Do I actually need an EIN, or could I just issue this invoice without one?

🙂

Okay, we settled my first case above.

Now I have a second one, and it's the exact opposite. 🙂

A firm from Denmark reached out to me wanting to pay some money for advertising on my website. It's a digital service, but it doesn't fall under the category of reproducible goods, so it isn't covered by that directive from January 1, 2015, which specifically laid out how sales tax should be handled.

To be clear, I am not registered for sales tax, though I do have an EIN.

The Danish company asked for my EIN, obviously, so we wouldn't have to charge each other sales tax—basically, I send them an invoice for 500 pounds, and they just pay the 500 pounds.

If I were registered for sales tax, this wouldn't be an issue. But since I'm not, I can't operate that way.

From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), in this scenario, I would still be required to collect American sales tax at 25%, even though I'm not in the system, just because the tax has to be paid somewhere.

Or, I could just issue them an invoice for 500 without any tax, and then they are responsible for handling the Danish sales tax (also 25%) when they acquire the service, and it's not really my concern whether they actually pay it or not?

I am not registered for sales tax and don't have a tax ID.
I'm ordering a service from Germany.

Should I be asking for their tax ID before I place the order, and will I be hit with a 25% sales tax on the service when I acquire it?

Alexander Thompson said:I mean, if diving headfirst into a negative balance when the terms are clearly stacked against you isn't considered reckless behavior, then I'm just lost. 🤷

By the current legal definition, usury is when an interest rate hits 8% above the maximum late fee cap—so we're looking at something like 18%... I mean, look, if you don't like it, you don't have to use them, right?

Personally, even 5% feels way too steep to me, which is why I usually try to steer clear of using anyone else's money altogether...

Sure, there's always that option where you blow through someone else's cash and then act totally blindsided when you actually have to pay it back based on the rules you agreed to upfront...

The maximum penalty interest rate in financial services from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2016, was 10.05%. Usury rate isn't actually a specific term. What exists is the maximum allowable interest rate a legal entity can charge a private individual: 14%.

Alexander Thompson said:I mean, if diving headfirst into a negative balance when the terms are clearly stacked against you isn't considered reckless behavior, then I'm just lost. 🤷

By the current legal definition, usury is when an interest rate hits 8% above the maximum late fee cap—so we're looking at something like 18%... I mean, look, if you don't like it, you don't have to use them, right?

Personally, even 5% feels way too steep to me, which is why I usually try to steer clear of using anyone else's money altogether...

Sure, there's always that option where you blow through someone else's cash and then act totally blindsided when you actually have to pay it back based on the rules you agreed to upfront...

You're wrong enough to deserve a slap—plenty of people have to take it, regardless of the terms. That's why regulations exist to dictate exactly how much you can fleece someone who has no choice.

Or how much you can rip off a fool. And there are fools.

Interest on authorized overdrafts at Chase is zabiti 14,00%. About 50-60% of people with checking accounts use an overdraft.

You can just look the other way, which is what you're doing here:

Alexander Thompson said:I mean, if diving headfirst into a negative balance when the terms are clearly stacked against you isn't considered reckless behavior, then I'm just lost. 🤷

By the current legal definition, usury is when an interest rate hits 8% above the maximum late fee cap—so we're looking at something like 18%... I mean, look, if you don't like it, you don't have to use them, right?

Personally, even 5% feels way too steep to me, which is why I usually try to steer clear of using anyone else's money altogether...

Sure, there's always that option where you blow through someone else's cash and then act totally blindsided when you actually have to pay it back based on the rules you agreed to upfront...

...but that's just saying you shouldn't trust a hungry man. It's not an argument.

Alexander Thompson said:I mean, if diving headfirst into a negative balance when the terms are clearly stacked against you isn't considered reckless behavior, then I'm just lost. 🤷

By the current legal definition, usury is when an interest rate hits 8% above the maximum late fee cap—so we're looking at something like 18%... I mean, look, if you don't like it, you don't have to use them, right?

Personally, even 5% feels way too steep to me, which is why I usually try to steer clear of using anyone else's money altogether...

Sure, there's always that option where you blow through someone else's cash and then act totally blindsided when you actually have to pay it back based on the rules you agreed to upfront...

There are plenty of ways that debt grows 10x or 40x depending on how much time passes, and then that debt forces a need for a new loan. A person ends up in debt bondage, which is a very real thing that happens to people in the real world. Right here, around you.

I'm sorry, but I have to tell you that you're supporting green ideology with the argument that "whatever you spend, you must pay." It doesn't hold water. We aren't talking about whether it should be paid back; we are saying that lending money is a service that carries a reasonable price.

The bank tries to exceed that reasonable price in every possible way andkeeping you shackled by debt for as long as possible. There’s a massive gap between what you think you’re signing up for in good faith and the actual trap the bank sets for you.

Everything seems fine until life hits you with something you consider unforeseen, but the bank considers perfectly predictable—like a death in the family (less income...), having a kid, getting married, a divorce, disability, illness, or losing a job. Suddenly, you're defenseless.

This isn't about expecting someone to bail you out of trouble; it's about realizing that entity was actually waiting for you to stumble because that's their favorite kind of client.

It ends with a measly little loan $4.00 ruining your finances for years. A 14% interest rate doesn't mean you pay $0.56 total; it means you pay $0.56 every single year. And an overdraft doesn't have a repayment term like a standard loan; it just goes on forever.

Your idea that we should just grant banks the right to lend money under whatever terms they want—as if anyone would actually sign that—is so idiotic I won't even dignify it with a comment. That sounds like something a teenager would say who hasn't experienced real life. Or maybe someone who hasn't lived in America for the last 20-25 years.

If you actually want to solve the problem, you need to come up with something better than "just refrain from using other people's money," which is honestly terrible financial advice.

Capping maximum interest rates isn't socialism. Though, there should be a social element involved since you're supposed to care about your citizens. A productive citizen who pays taxes and drives the economy is much more useful than one trapped in debt slavery.

That’s why things have changed drastically over the last 5-10 years. It certainly wasn't because of ignoramuses like you; it was because people recognized the issue and fought to make us a more civilized nation with rules governing how you can treat consumers.

That’s why the current interest rate is 10.05% (recently lowered), whereas it used to be as high as 30%. Annually. I hope you didn't have financial struggles requiring bank help back then. Many people did.

Worked 🙂 🙂 🙂

First, I went into the BIOS and switched the drive status from "Hard Drive" to "Solid state Drive." Once I rebooted, I actually saw a screen I've never encountered before—it was orange with vertical white stripes. I guess it was some kind of orange screen of death.

Then, during the boot process, I hit F11. Between the "USB 4 GB" and "UEFI 4 GB" options for that Windows 10 USB, I picked "UEFI." Under the recovery options, a new choice popped up: "exit and continue to Windows 10".

I clicked that, and finally got my PC back.

I don't really get why all that was necessary, and honestly, I don't even know exactly how I fixed it.
The first time around, I was moving away from Windows; I shouldn't have had to do any of this. They were just totally lost.

Slight progress. I used another PC to make a Windows 10 USB, then booted the problematic computer from it so I could access the recovery options.

When I try a new Windows installation while keeping my data, I get an error saying, "The disk where the Windows installation is located is locked; unlock it and try again." So, that's the issue. The disk is somehow locked.

If I select the command prompt, I can see all the files on the disk.

I found some commands that were supposed to fix this and unlock the disk, but they didn't help:
chkdsk /f /v /r /b /offlinescanandfix c:
bcdboot c:\windows /s c:

The Hard Drive is under warranty, but I suspect they'd just send it back claiming it works fine since the hardware itself is likely okay. It would be a long wait, too, and there's always that risk of them wiping my data. I've already ruled out the Hard Drive, the SATA cable, and the SATA port.

I have the CSM option in my BIOS, but toggling it on or off doesn't change anything. It's useless.

I'm not entirely sure how I installed Windows, all I know is it was recent—about six months ago—and I'm running Windows 10. I didn't make any specific settings; I just followed the prompts during an online installation onto a new Hard Drive. Everything worked perfectly for quite a while.

The PC was working fine last night. This morning, it isn't. I have no idea what happened overnight, whether it was a Windows issue or something with the BIOS.

Not only is the drive no longer bootable, but when I boot from a different Hard Drive (Windows 8.1), the files aren't visible. It doesn't even recognize the drive.

If there's a way to reinstall Windows without wiping the partition—which would mean losing all my business and personal data—then that's a solution. If that's not an option, I'm stuck.

SATA, it’s always been that way.

Windows 10 still isn't detecting it, whether I plug it into this PC or another one. The BIOS sees it everywhere.

So it’s clearly not an issue with Windows, the motherboard, or any other hardware in the rig. The problem lies within the SSD itself, though it probably hasn't completely died yet.

What should my move be here? Should I take it to a repair shop or go straight to the data recovery specialists? It wouldn't be the first time a technician told someone, "It's fixed, but we had to format everything." 🙂

Woke up this morning, turned on my PC, and got hit with this message:
"Insert selected boot device and press a key."

I'm running a Samsung 120 GB SSD. The BIOS actually sees it, which makes me think the drive hasn't completely died yet, so the issue might be elsewhere.

Maybe it's a Windows 10 thing. I guess a random update could have run overnight and caused some kind of conflict. Wouldn't surprise me.

I updated the BIOS.
Swapped out the SATA cable and tried a different port.
Tested an old hard drive—that works fine.

What do you guys think? Is the SSD dead or is there still hope? What else should I try before I just take it to a repair shop?

ruggedmaker2 said:Seriously, from 2011 until now, you still haven't managed to pay off that $333 debt?
Look, if you had just chipped in $17 every single month, you would've cleared this by now and avoided all those nasty interest charges and notary fees. If you had just sat down and worked out a settlement, you could've dodged this entire enforcement process too. But clearly, you didn't show any real intention of paying up.

You don't have any grounds for an Appeal because the enforcement is clearly finalized, and now you're stuck with that standard 10-year statute of limitations.

You really should have reached a settlement with the Believer before they even started the enforcement process. Now? It's way too late.
Basically, you can only appeal if there's actual legal ground to stand on—you can't cry foul about the statute of limitations when it hasn't even kicked in yet.

Maybe she just didn't have someone like you acting as an advisor to explain the process, so she could just grab the cash and pay it off.

Back in 2003, a local parking authority was illegally charging me for parking near my apartment building. The actual facts were never established in court; it was just a classic move where they took their internal documents straight to a notary, who then issued an enforcement order.
I haven't received any official enforcement order. I suspect they pulled some trick involving a public notice.
A few days ago, I got a notification stating that a process server came to my door looking for me but couldn't find me.
This case doesn't even show up on the IRS registry for priority collection against liquid assets.

Questions:
1. Can I claim the statute of limitations?
2. Can they skip straight to sending people to my house without even attempting to collect from my bank accounts first?
3. Since an Appeal might not be an option, what's the best way to seek restitution and somehow get this matter back before a judge to establish the actual facts? My goal is to stop these process servers from showing up at my door again.

Thanks in advance.

It might be better to just use PayPal/Skrill for your withdrawals.

Odds, lineups, injuries, and suspensions for today's top leagues:
Italian Serie A
Spanish La Liga
French Ligue 1
Dutch Eredivisie
(Osijek vs Dinamo)

Lineups are available for the top five leagues, excluding France. For the others, I've just included the odds.

No problem. Regards. 😉

Chelsea vs Barcelona feels like a lock. Bayern vs Real isn't quite there, but the odds look decent enough.

Chelsea vs Barcelona
Bayern vs Real

I'm taking Chelsea vs Barca under 2.5 goals at 2.08 on Betfair. Three years ago they played to a 1:1, and that first match in Barcelona ended 0:0. I guess Chelsea will just sit back with 10 men and try to hit them on the break.

Bayern has looked shaky against the top tier this year, and this is Real's first major test. Maybe Bayern is missing something, while Real has found their rhythm with Benzema on the right wing and Higuain leading the line. Real, 2.84, Betfair.

I agree with the take on Dinamo vs. Lokomotiv; Lokomotiv is heading to the Europa League.

The odds look decent today for Milan and PSG; I expect both to pull off wins. My top pick for today is Hertha-Wolfsburg 2 3.00 at a 6/10 confidence level. They’ve finally found some momentum, though Hertha is struggling. Away wins in the Bundesliga aren't exactly rare.

Here are the odds and lineups for today if anyone needs them:
England, Italy, Germany, Spain
Don't mention it. ☕

The odds on APOEL not scoring are decent, sitting at 1.71 right now.🤷 Today I’m looking at Schalke vs. Athletic; both teams to score seems likely. Honestly, it feels more probable that Athletic finds the net than Schalke. They haven't really put together a solid performance against any top-tier club this season—at least not from what I've seen, and I've watched plenty of them.

Both teams to score odds

Christian Morales40 said:PSV-Valencia More than two goals. 1,65
Two attacking sides here, both conceding more than a goal per match in their respective leagues. It’s going to be an open game. PSV will be hunting for goals, but I doubt they'll keep a clean sheet. Maybe they'll concede at least one.

What if Valencia scores first? This match is dead... maybe.

What worries me most is that everyone across all of Europe is betting on over 2.5 goals right now. Those kinds of bets usually fail just like that.