brightwolf48 said:Personally, my favorites have to be the UK punk scene—Stiff Little Fingers, and especially that Hanx live album! Did you ever catch them at the local arena?
No, I haven't...
Home ›
dustygardener43 › Posts
Posts by dustygardener43
40 posts shown.
No, I haven't...
brightwolf48 said:A little more of that 1982 Boston punk... The Ramones - Rocket to Universe...
I find myself gravitating much more toward the original British punk movement. This American iteration just doesn't quite sit right with me... It carries a certain quality that reminds me far too much of the Ramones.
It seems to me that Americans have a much stronger affinity for Rock-a-billy...🙂 With the exception of the Dead Kennedys, of course—though even they aren't exactly pure punk...
Naná Vasconcelos
Checking for liens and garnishments
in Economy ·
urbanwalker72 said:
In essence, if there is an amount due for a refund, it works heavily in that client's favor. It seems no one ever complains when an error results in extra money for them.
Additionally, according to City Hall and the US Chamber of Commerce, they had a zero balance on the account until May 2014, showing only incoming payments. Whether those were processed manually or electronically is irrelevant to me, but there is absolutely no way the bookkeeping was completed on time.
City Hall processes via electronic forms, while the US Chamber of Commerce handles their own entries through the Secretary of State.
But if the payments were recorded, why worry? It ultimately benefits you.
In this specific instance, we were dealing with payroll taxes, and the representative didn't even know the actual names of the contributions. She was just providing internal tax identification numbers, so it took me about five minutes just to figure out which specific tax she was referring to.
That is precisely why I maintain that they need to implement better selection processes so they actually know the names of the taxes they are handling.
I have encountered real-world cases where even larger amounts were written off for a client.
Based on your experience, all these tax errors seem to be in the clients' favor. 🤣 Well, that sounds like a good thing...
It doesn't matter if they are asking me to pay $0.01 while they are $3.25 writing off their own debt to me—is that acceptable to you?😁
That would, quite obviously, be madness.
Don't play games with me; should I start listing the specific entities where this occurs? Do I look like someone who asks for refunds? I don't post on these threads because of friends or simply because I am bored...
Look, are you running an entire accounting firm here? My background is in applied mathematics and computer science, yet even I can see that these laws are straightforward.
According to the Census Bureau and the IRS, every single request for a tax refund is strictly regulated regarding deadlines. For example, if you submit a claim for an overpayment, they are legally required to either return the funds within 15 days or issue an official administrative document explaining why they won't, which you then have the right to appeal. If they fail to do either, interest starts accruing in your favor. There is simply no way for you to lose that argument.
The statute of limitations for income tax filings allows for a one-year window from the date of submission.
I recall a major hotel chain that managed to secure roughly 100 $0.00 in interest credits because the IRS owed them after an audit, even though everything had been handled perfectly.
Similarly, I know of a corporation that lost out on 80 $0.00 in VAT overpayments simply because they failed to claim them within a four or five-year period, causing the credit to expire.
However, if you have a valid claim, you cannot lose it; it is established de Iure, and no higher authority can deny it to you—it is as certain as the sunrise.
In essence, if there is an amount due for a refund, it works heavily in that client's favor. It seems no one ever complains when an error results in extra money for them.
Additionally, according to City Hall and the US Chamber of Commerce, they had a zero balance on the account until May 2014, showing only incoming payments. Whether those were processed manually or electronically is irrelevant to me, but there is absolutely no way the bookkeeping was completed on time.
City Hall processes via electronic forms, while the US Chamber of Commerce handles their own entries through the Secretary of State.
But if the payments were recorded, why worry? It ultimately benefits you.
In this specific instance, we were dealing with payroll taxes, and the representative didn't even know the actual names of the contributions. She was just providing internal tax identification numbers, so it took me about five minutes just to figure out which specific tax she was referring to.
That is precisely why I maintain that they need to implement better selection processes so they actually know the names of the taxes they are handling.
I have encountered real-world cases where even larger amounts were written off for a client.
Based on your experience, all these tax errors seem to be in the clients' favor. 🤣 Well, that sounds like a good thing...
It doesn't matter if they are asking me to pay $0.01 while they are $3.25 writing off their own debt to me—is that acceptable to you?😁
That would, quite obviously, be madness.
Don't play games with me; should I start listing the specific entities where this occurs? Do I look like someone who asks for refunds? I don't post on these threads because of friends or simply because I am bored...
Look, are you running an entire accounting firm here? My background is in applied mathematics and computer science, yet even I can see that these laws are straightforward.
According to the Census Bureau and the IRS, every single request for a tax refund is strictly regulated regarding deadlines. For example, if you submit a claim for an overpayment, they are legally required to either return the funds within 15 days or issue an official administrative document explaining why they won't, which you then have the right to appeal. If they fail to do either, interest starts accruing in your favor. There is simply no way for you to lose that argument.
The statute of limitations for income tax filings allows for a one-year window from the date of submission.
I recall a major hotel chain that managed to secure roughly 100 $0.00 in interest credits because the IRS owed them after an audit, even though everything had been handled perfectly.
Similarly, I know of a corporation that lost out on 80 $0.00 in VAT overpayments simply because they failed to claim them within a four or five-year period, causing the credit to expire.
However, if you have a valid claim, you cannot lose it; it is established de Iure, and no higher authority can deny it to you—it is as certain as the sunrise.
While it may be de Iure, especially following the adoption of various European Union directives... de facto, unfortunately, it isn't. Achieving that requires more efficient ministers, directors, agency heads, and civil servants working in a coordinated, top-down fashion. Naturally, they don't have such people, because they aren't willing to pay for actual efficiency. Instead, they prefer to hire hundreds upon thousands of ineffective bureaucrats and essentially buy elections... and this applies to everyone, whether they are left-wing, right-wing, or the so-called centrists...
Look, in my practical experience, I have seen and heard just about everything under the sun, and I don't write merely to criticize. When things actually improve, I will be the first to offer praise. The IRS digital portal project and the electronic filing systems are well-conceived in theory, and the upload function works reasonably well (at least until Java needs an update 🤣)... I recently saw some private contracts for e-citizen services and similar projects, which I actually commend. 👏🙂
Checking for liens and garnishments
in Economy ·
urbanwalker72;51262727 said:
Well, why on earth were you surprised to find yourself owing three cents?
You didn't pay on time, nobody bothered to check your home or office records to see if you actually owed anything, and clearly, you haven't a clue how Sales Tax credits are reconciled...
Your shock—and this tedious back-and-forth over such a trivial anecdote—makes it abundantly clear...
Your deductive reasoning is truly unparalleled😁 ...perhaps I should hire you as a consultant? These things happen daily, particularly during client acquisitions or when the IRS changes its ways right in the middle of a relocation... your expertise has left me quite stunned🙂 regardless, I have no intention of making this personal; we are strangers...urbanwalker72;51262727 said:
Accountants don't book para-fiscal income. They work with predetermined value dates. Furthermore, almost no forms are processed manually anymore; it's all electronic. And when those forms are recorded, they use the legal value date—you surely don't believe interest is being charged simply because their bookkeeping is lagging behind?
Recently, a clerk at one of my clients called me, informing me in August that she was still processing Sales Tax filings as of December 31, 2013. Additionally, both City Hall and the US Chamber of Commerce showed a zero balance on the account until May 2014; only payments were visible... whether it’s manual or electronic is irrelevant to me, but the idea that the books were updated on time is pure fantasy.
In this specific instance, we were dealing with payroll taxes, and the clerk didn't even know the names of the specific levies; she was just reciting internal tax ID numbers, so it took me five minutes just to figure out which tax we were discussing.urbanwalker72;51262727 said:
If they are written off by December 31st per $3.25 (and para-fiscal items, much like those tied to seniority, are never written off), then you should simply request a confirmation statement dated December 31st.
I've seen cases in practice where even larger amounts were written off for a client. It doesn't matter if they demand payment from me $0.01 while simultaneously writing off $3.25 what they owe me... is that acceptable in your book?😁urbanwalker72 said:If that is the case, why was there any surprise regarding a three-cent debt?
One simply failed to make the payment on time, neglected to check their home or office records to verify their status, and remained unaware of the mechanics behind VAT compensation.
Such confusion becomes quite evident when one dwells on such trivial anecdotes.
AndIf one had truly studied the inner workings of the tax system, they would realize how "up to date" everything actually is; for instance, filings submitted to Goldman Sachs in March are processed by August, yet the IRS portal often fails to reflect current balances because the clerk hasn't finished posting everything—which leads to those famous $0.03 balances, regardless of whether they represent interest or principal. Furthermore, such small balances, or even larger credits, are frequently written off on December 31st.
Clerks do not manually book parafiscal revenue. These transactions follow a predetermined value date. Moreover, almost no forms are processed by hand anymore; they are handled electronically. When these forms are posted, they are recorded using the legal value date—it is unlikely that interest is being charged simply due to a delay in bookkeeping.
If credits are being written off on December 31st up until $3.25 (though parafiscal funds, much like those tied to service years, are never written off), then one should simply request a confirmation statement as of December 31st.By the way, I have yet to encounter anyone who actually received interest on a delayed tax refund, even though the IRS regulations state the government is obligated to pay it.
Could you provide a specific instance where a refund was delayed, and do you know of anyone who has actually filed a claim for it?
Don't be ridiculous. Am I expected to sit here and list every entity where this occurs? Do I know someone who requested a refund? I don't post on these threads because of my professional associates and because, frankly, it's tedious...😂
Checking for liens and garnishments
in Economy ·
I’m new here, so I’m still wrapping my head around how everything actually works on a day-to-day basis. I guess I'll look to you to walk me through it... 😁
Actually, if you’ve ever had a peek behind the curtain of the tax system, you’d know they aren't exactly "real-time." For instance, when Goldman Sachs—or rather, the Department of the Treasury and its associated financial institutions—submits data in March, it might not even hit the books until August. Even then, the IRS portal often fails to reflect an accurate debt balance because some clerk hasn't finished processing the paperwork yet. That’s where you get those ridiculous $0.03 balances, regardless of whether it’s interest or principal... It’s all very disorganized. And occasionally, those balances—even larger ones where the government actually owes the client—just mysteriously vanish during year-end write-offs on December 31st.
Thanks for the lecture on your extensive expertise regarding domestic and international fiscal systems. One can never have too much information, I suppose... 🤣 Precisely. It’s clearly the entrepreneurs' fault for every single issue we face; if it weren't for them, the bureaucracy would be living in pure bliss. 😁
By the way, I have yet to encounter anyone who actually received interest on a late tax refund, despite what the IRS says about their obligation to pay it out.
Actually, if you’ve ever had a peek behind the curtain of the tax system, you’d know they aren't exactly "real-time." For instance, when Goldman Sachs—or rather, the Department of the Treasury and its associated financial institutions—submits data in March, it might not even hit the books until August. Even then, the IRS portal often fails to reflect an accurate debt balance because some clerk hasn't finished processing the paperwork yet. That’s where you get those ridiculous $0.03 balances, regardless of whether it’s interest or principal... It’s all very disorganized. And occasionally, those balances—even larger ones where the government actually owes the client—just mysteriously vanish during year-end write-offs on December 31st.
Thanks for the lecture on your extensive expertise regarding domestic and international fiscal systems. One can never have too much information, I suppose... 🤣 Precisely. It’s clearly the entrepreneurs' fault for every single issue we face; if it weren't for them, the bureaucracy would be living in pure bliss. 😁
By the way, I have yet to encounter anyone who actually received interest on a late tax refund, despite what the IRS says about their obligation to pay it out.
Checking for liens and garnishments
in Economy ·
It is truly remarkable how much state-level information technology has advanced lately. Despite being saddled with a debt of $0.01 (if you actually bothered to read the figures), certain quasi-fiscal entities refuse to even issue a statement regarding their liabilities—information that is absolutely critical if a company is to finalize a business transaction. Or, even more egregious, they are actively disputing VAT refunds amounting to tens of thousands of dollars.🙂
When questioned about why they aren't processing these claims, their response is always the same: they claim they aren't my personal concierge service, they don't want to waste money on paper transfers, and they suggest I simply settle the outstanding debt of $0.01 and send over the receipt. 🙂
I am not exaggerating here; this level of dysfunction is a standard, everyday occurrence within our bureaucracy. And yet, one might still be expected to view this government as some sort of impartial arbiter, supposedly protecting entrepreneurs from risk... though I fail to see who such a "protector" would actually be saving. Himselff...? 😂
When questioned about why they aren't processing these claims, their response is always the same: they claim they aren't my personal concierge service, they don't want to waste money on paper transfers, and they suggest I simply settle the outstanding debt of $0.01 and send over the receipt. 🙂
I am not exaggerating here; this level of dysfunction is a standard, everyday occurrence within our bureaucracy. And yet, one might still be expected to view this government as some sort of impartial arbiter, supposedly protecting entrepreneurs from risk... though I fail to see who such a "protector" would actually be saving. Himselff...? 😂
Checking for liens and garnishments
in Economy ·
When it comes to government contracts—whether we’re talking about federal agencies, state governments, or those local municipal bodies and public corporations—there is a certain breed of private entrepreneur that will stop at nothing to ensure they walk away with the win... It’s become quite a predictable spectacle, really. They employ every conceivable tactic to tilt the scales in their favor, navigating the bureaucracy with a desperation that borders on the theatrical... one wonders if the integrity of the process is even a consideration anymore.
It frequently occurs that once a delivery is completed, the full payment—or even a partial one—fails to materialize within the agreed timeframe. This inevitably triggers a domino effect where those entrepreneurs find themselves unable to cover payroll, settle their taxes, or meet other obligations... despite the fact they should have seen this exact scenario coming from a mile away. One would think they’d be more prepared for such predictable failures.
Following your line of reasoning, I find myself wondering about the government's actual role in such a scenario... If we follow that logic to its conclusion, who exactly is responsible for assessing those ratings, and who is tasked with dictating which parties are permitted to conduct business with one another? It seems like a slippery slope toward overreach...
Just because certain rating agencies completely dropped the ball during the mortgage crisis in the US doesn't mean their role becomes obsolete... Even when referees blow calls or lose control of the game on the field, the necessity of the institution remains. It’s a flawed system, certainly, but the concept itself persists...😁
When it comes to massaging the numbers in a report, there is always a way to make things look a certain way... whether you are dealing with Goldman Sachs data or those tax filings submitted simultaneously to the Department of the Treasury. Since those tax documents are almost entirely compatible with the Goldman Sachs reports sent over to Finance, the opportunity for "creative" adjustments remains ever-present...
An audit isn't even mandatory for SCA reports, and even when one does take place, it doesn't exactly guarantee that the submitted figures are 100% accurate... there are plenty of instances where auditors have simply looked the other way, with Enron being the most glaringly obvious example...
It frequently occurs that once a delivery is completed, the full payment—or even a partial one—fails to materialize within the agreed timeframe. This inevitably triggers a domino effect where those entrepreneurs find themselves unable to cover payroll, settle their taxes, or meet other obligations... despite the fact they should have seen this exact scenario coming from a mile away. One would think they’d be more prepared for such predictable failures.
Following your line of reasoning, I find myself wondering about the government's actual role in such a scenario... If we follow that logic to its conclusion, who exactly is responsible for assessing those ratings, and who is tasked with dictating which parties are permitted to conduct business with one another? It seems like a slippery slope toward overreach...
Just because certain rating agencies completely dropped the ball during the mortgage crisis in the US doesn't mean their role becomes obsolete... Even when referees blow calls or lose control of the game on the field, the necessity of the institution remains. It’s a flawed system, certainly, but the concept itself persists...😁
When it comes to massaging the numbers in a report, there is always a way to make things look a certain way... whether you are dealing with Goldman Sachs data or those tax filings submitted simultaneously to the Department of the Treasury. Since those tax documents are almost entirely compatible with the Goldman Sachs reports sent over to Finance, the opportunity for "creative" adjustments remains ever-present...
An audit isn't even mandatory for SCA reports, and even when one does take place, it doesn't exactly guarantee that the submitted figures are 100% accurate... there are plenty of instances where auditors have simply looked the other way, with Enron being the most glaringly obvious example...
Checking for liens and garnishments
in Economy ·
urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.
Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.
It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.
Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.
The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?
You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.
Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?
It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.
There is a massive difference between true laissez-faire—which certainly never existed here to begin with—and a system where the government dictates which entrepreneurs can do business and which cannot. It simultaneously protects rotting corporations under the guise of "job preservation" while keeping them tethered to the system through backroom deals and similar arrangements...
urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.
Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.
It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.
Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.
The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?
You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.
Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?
It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.
And what on earth does that have to do with determining credit ratings, which are ubiquitous throughout the private sector? More importantly, who decides the ratings for the state and its agencies, especially when they act as market players themselves?
urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.
Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.
It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.
Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.
The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?
You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.
Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?
It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.
Monetary policy isn't my area of expertise, so I won't delve into it now. I fail to see how it even relates to this discussion...
urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.
Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.
It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.
Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.
The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?
You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.
Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?
It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.
The topic at hand is business credit ratings, not fiscal policy...
urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.
Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.
It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.
Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.
The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?
You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.
Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?
It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.
All the data from Goldman Sachs gets handed directly over to the Department of the Treasury, which then turns around and sells those credit ratings—the very same ones they offer for purchase, if you recall—to third-party agencies like Bisnode. And yet, the Treasury remains under full government control... it's all quite a cycle...
urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.
Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.
It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.
Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.
The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?
You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.
Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?
It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.
What is highlighted here is fundamentally the role of the state, rather than some arbitrary process of determining credit ratings... It raises a much deeper question regarding why oversight was nonexistent all this time. One has to wonder why the government permitted Entrepreneur A to evade their taxes without consequence, while simultaneously cracking down on Entrepreneurs B and C...
urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.
Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.
It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.
Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.
The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?
You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.
Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?
It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.
What exactly constitutes a "discreet" approach in your view? It seems rather naive to assume the government holds some absolute, omniscient grip on all business intelligence data... There are always variables they cannot account for. Consider what happens when global giants suffer catastrophic collapses—take the Enron scandal, for instance. Before such implosions occur, every entrepreneur is practically tripping over themselves to secure a contract with them. In that context, smaller nations would be lucky if a titan like that even expressed a passing interest in doing business within their borders...☕
Checking for liens and garnishments
in Economy ·
This isn't a matter for the government to handle. At its core, entrepreneurship is about managing business risks and everything else that comes with it. Anyone incapable of doing that shouldn't be in this game to begin with. Any level of state intervention—which is already far too heavy-handed here in the US—will only end up producing negative results...
Checking for liens and garnishments
in Economy ·
When you look at credit ratings based on Dun & B criteria, they rely heavily on Dun && Bradstreet—which feeds into portals like Bill Gates and LinkedIn. The fundamental flaw, however, is their inability to distinguish between obligations owed to related entities versus external creditors. Consequently, subsidiaries often receive unfairly low scores... because a debt owed to a parent company isn't the same thing as a debt owed to an outside vendor, especially once a potential restructuring occurs and the company's profile improves significantly.
The second issue is the lack of data freshness; we don't get quarterly updates, for instance. Everything is tethered to whatever Goldman Sachs reports. If today is August 31st, we are essentially looking at "last year's snow." Making a decision on whether to engage with a partner based on data from December 31st of the previous year is a precarious gamble... one where we either walk straight into a risk or let a perfectly good opportunity slip through our fingers.
The second issue is the lack of data freshness; we don't get quarterly updates, for instance. Everything is tethered to whatever Goldman Sachs reports. If today is August 31st, we are essentially looking at "last year's snow." Making a decision on whether to engage with a partner based on data from December 31st of the previous year is a precarious gamble... one where we either walk straight into a risk or let a perfectly good opportunity slip through our fingers.
Checking for liens and garnishments
in Economy ·
restlessjackal14 said:Is there actually any way to find out if a company's bank accounts have been seized or hit with a levy in the last six months, a year, maybe three years?
I was just thinking—maybe I could just nudge the client directly and ask if they’re actually staying on top of their bills or if they’re just one of those people who drags their feet and plays games with everyone...
It is possible, though you'll have to pay for the privilege. You might want to reach out to Dun & Bradstreet or Bill Gates, and I suspect the IRS likely offers some sort of service for this as well.
Best way to track stocks, securities, and dividends?
in Business, Accounting & Taxes ·
To begin with, you must first decide how you intend to classify these shares under your financial asset categories (per FASB standards).
Given that we are discussing equities and looking at the nature of these transactions, I suspect we are dealing with financial assets held at fair value through profit or loss.
In practice, when acquiring shares, you should initially record them on a clearing account (an asset in Class 1), representing the transfer from your checking account to your broker or custodian.
Once that is settled, you clear the clearing account (which, by the way, doesn't necessarily have to be a clearing account if you maintain a constant cash deposit in your custodial account for future trades—in which case it functions much like a short-term deposit sitting alongside your Chase or Bank of America accounts).
Essentially, you credit the broker's clearing account to close it out, then debit the acquisition of shares at fair value through profit or loss within Class 1 (short-term financial assets—equities). Brokerage commissions and custodial fees for this specific category (FVTPL) ought to be recorded separately...
At least once a year—typically on December 31st—you must perform a portfolio revaluation based on the closing market price from the final trading day.
Under current U.S. tax law, unrealized gains are recognized for tax purposes, whereas unrealized losses are not; put simply, you end up paying taxes on shares you’ve marked up in value even if you haven't actually sold them at a loss yet...
In the subsequent period, there is an option to adjust for such temporary tax differences.
Dividends are not bundled directly into the portfolio value for this asset class (FVTPL); rather, they should be recorded separately as a receivable for dividends or dividend income—specifically for trading securities.
If you find yourself trading frequently amidst significant market volatility, it might be prudent to apply a weighted average cost method during your portfolio revaluations. It isn't strictly mandatory, of course, but it does provide some measure of clarity...
Given that we are discussing equities and looking at the nature of these transactions, I suspect we are dealing with financial assets held at fair value through profit or loss.
In practice, when acquiring shares, you should initially record them on a clearing account (an asset in Class 1), representing the transfer from your checking account to your broker or custodian.
Once that is settled, you clear the clearing account (which, by the way, doesn't necessarily have to be a clearing account if you maintain a constant cash deposit in your custodial account for future trades—in which case it functions much like a short-term deposit sitting alongside your Chase or Bank of America accounts).
Essentially, you credit the broker's clearing account to close it out, then debit the acquisition of shares at fair value through profit or loss within Class 1 (short-term financial assets—equities). Brokerage commissions and custodial fees for this specific category (FVTPL) ought to be recorded separately...
At least once a year—typically on December 31st—you must perform a portfolio revaluation based on the closing market price from the final trading day.
Under current U.S. tax law, unrealized gains are recognized for tax purposes, whereas unrealized losses are not; put simply, you end up paying taxes on shares you’ve marked up in value even if you haven't actually sold them at a loss yet...
In the subsequent period, there is an option to adjust for such temporary tax differences.
Dividends are not bundled directly into the portfolio value for this asset class (FVTPL); rather, they should be recorded separately as a receivable for dividends or dividend income—specifically for trading securities.
If you find yourself trading frequently amidst significant market volatility, it might be prudent to apply a weighted average cost method during your portfolio revaluations. It isn't strictly mandatory, of course, but it does provide some measure of clarity...
Balance of Trade
in Economy ·
Statistical Overview: Annual Foreign Economic Relations regarding the Balance of Trade for goods and services
http://www.federalreserve.gov/index.html ☕
http://www.federalreserve.gov/index.html ☕
Balance of Trade
in Economy ·
A balance sheet—much like any fundamental accounting ledger—has to balance out, which means it must hit zero.
If one segment shows a deficit, such as the current account (which tracks the exchange of goods and services with foreign nations), that shortfall necessitates an equal surplus in another area—specifically (fthe financial account).🙂
If one segment shows a deficit, such as the current account (which tracks the exchange of goods and services with foreign nations), that shortfall necessitates an equal surplus in another area—specifically (fthe financial account).🙂
Gold: Past, Present, and Future
in Other Investment Types ·
Anthony Evans78 said:Do you actually have those physical assets in your hands?
Of course not. All you've got is a paper promise that you might one day see them. Good luck with that.
Sure, anyone gambling in a casino deserves to lose every cent they have. And now, why don't you go ahead and quote me saying I mentioned the specific form of financial assets "for any reason whatsoever."🙂
Holding or trading ETFs is essentially the same kind of "gambling" as trading any other form of FI.
I fail to see any meaningful difference in risk when you're buying a single ETF versus buying shares in a specific
company. It all boils down to the inherent risk of the individual instrument within the basket...
Gold: Past, Present, and Future
in Other Investment Types ·
Anthony Evans78 said:The problem is, most of these ETFs aren't actually backed by physical precious metals. Anyone diving into them without knowing that deserves to lose every single Dollar they put in.
That simply isn't accurate. Spyder and a handful of other ETFs actually hold physical bullion...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hl?s=GLD+Holdings
Here is a list showcasing various gold-exposed ETFs, both physical and synthetic...
http://etfdb.com/2009/the-definitive...inute-edition/
Frankly, such a bold assertion is quite laughable. By that logic, anyone holding any form of financial asset—whether for speculative purposes or
for whatever other reason imaginable—deserves the same fate according to your reasoning...😂
Gold: Past, Present, and Future
in Other Investment Types ·
quiettrucker12 said:You just have to realize that mining stocks are a dangerous game. People underestimate them now, but that's changing—theoretically, they can always tank even harder.
BlackRock and United States Leveraged are basically silver plays with leverage. dustyheron5 wasn't super clear about it, so let me set the record straight: these aren't miners, they're just boosted silver exposure.
Generally speaking, leveraged ETFs are incredibly dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. Someone who actually knows the ropes takes a tiny slice of their portfolio and usually holds it for a very short window. Beginners, on the other hand, go all in and risk wiping out their entire account in one go.
There’s also this super popular leveraged instrument that is pure mining play—NUGT, which is 3x GDX. That is straight-up playing with fire. It's designed specifically for day trading.
Leveraged stuff works fine when things are moving up, but once the trend reverses, volatility decay kicks in and eats your value alive.
That is correct. I am in agreement with the points raised...
For a stable portfolio—specifically for those who lack the desire or the time to stare at a Bloomberg terminal all day—it is sufficient to take positions in "physical"
SPDR funds like GLD, SLV, and others...
Positions in mining companies, or ETFs tracking the underlying mining stocks, are equally hazardous and function much like leveraged positions in the metals themselves...
For those who crave adrenaline and active trading, leveraged ETFs are certainly interesting toys...