thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,818
3 answers. 3 different ones. Great.
And that’s to a either/or question.
And that’s to a either/or question.
The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XLIII
- Thread starter Chukchi Husky
- Start date
Core Imposter
Deity
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,619
Really, it depends.
Noir is a French adjective and I do not believe that it gets an s when films (the noun) is plural. @Marla_Singer
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 11,829
Yeah, but when we adopt a term into English, we frequently Anglicize it. For example, in Japanese, the plural of ninja is ninja, but in English the plural of ninja is ninjas. (Although, I think the plural of samurai in English is still samurai - e.g. Seven Samurai - so who tf knows. English is a [borked] up language.
I pity anyone trying to learn it as a second language.)When Eastman & Laird were first working on their comic, they were going to call it Teenage Mutant Turtle Ninjas, but then they weren't sure if it should be 'ninja' or 'ninjas', so they switched it around. True story.
(I remember seeing TMNT #1 on the shelf in New England Collectibles, one of my go-to comics stores back in the day, and thinking it looked lame. I didn't bother getting it. I was getting 'real' ninja action in Frank Miller's Daredevil. In top condition, a 1st-edition TMNT #1 goes for about $40,000 today. And that really is a true story.)
Last edited:
In English we usually do not add an "s" to adjectives connected to plural nouns. Six blue cars; 12 angry men; dark films; sexy ladies; spaghetti westerns; classic films; golden oldies; nouns do have plural versions though.
Yeah, but when we adopt a term into English, we frequently Anglicize it. For example, in Japanese, the plural of ninja is ninja, but in English the plural of ninja is ninjas. (Although, I think the plural of samurai in English is still samurai - e.g. Seven Samurai - so who tf knows. English is a [borked] up language.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,635
It is both, plus films noirs. There is no convention and all three are valid interpretations of grammar rules. Pick the one that sparks the most joy in your heart and be free. Film noirs is slightly more popular than the rest.Is the plural of 'film noir' 'film noirs' or 'films noir'?
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 11,829
I'm leaning towards 'films noir.' Seems to roll off the tongue better. But it's always good to have options.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,240
When you can get three answers to an either/or question, you know it's a good day.
Narz
keeping it real
Does anyone here know much about US immigration policies?
I'm gonna have to pay to speak to an immigration lawyer when next in US but long story short my girlfriend married an American under some duress (long story) when she was 18. He said he'd sort all the paperwork for her but he didn't and she ended up overstaying her visa.
Later they separated (not legally) and I met her. A couple years later we moved to UK (another long story, health and family concerns) but I desperately want to move back to US to reunite my family (my 15yo daughter is there)
She's in process of divorce now but now has a 10 year ban for overstaying but I'm hoping in light of her young age when getting married and the fact that's she's the mother of two American citizens there may be room to negotiate.
Obviously this is something I need to speak to a lawyer about but their time is expensive so anything I should know to mention/bring to the table when speaking w the lawyer.
I'm gonna have to pay to speak to an immigration lawyer when next in US but long story short my girlfriend married an American under some duress (long story) when she was 18. He said he'd sort all the paperwork for her but he didn't and she ended up overstaying her visa.
Later they separated (not legally) and I met her. A couple years later we moved to UK (another long story, health and family concerns) but I desperately want to move back to US to reunite my family (my 15yo daughter is there)
She's in process of divorce now but now has a 10 year ban for overstaying but I'm hoping in light of her young age when getting married and the fact that's she's the mother of two American citizens there may be room to negotiate.
Obviously this is something I need to speak to a lawyer about but their time is expensive so anything I should know to mention/bring to the table when speaking w the lawyer.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 11,829
I can't answer your question, but some places have free "legal aid" or "consultation" services for immigrants. My city offers them twice a month, for example. If you're not going to be back here soon enough for that, you could see if the US embassy offers anything like that. I assume that's in London, but there could be consulates elsewhere.
"And a par-tridge in a pear tree..."
warpus
In pork I trust
I have a question that's related to finances/economics. There have been talks of increasing taxes on capital gains here in Canada, especially for those who make the most (i.e. not me), which got me reading more about all this, leading to this question popping up in my mind.
Say you invested $100,000 in 1975. For sake of arguing let's say that this is the equivalent of $500,000 in today's $, due to inflation. Assume Canadian or American currency, it doesn't really matter.
Let's also say this investment grew over the years and is now worth $1,000,000, in today's $.
To summarize, you invested something that in today's $ is worth $500k and doubled it in value. If you ignore inflation, your $100,000 grew 10x fold, but in terms of the raw value of the money invested, it has doubled in value.
Say you cash out that $1M. This is a taxable event, so the government will want to tax you on the profits. The government calculates that to be $900,000 in profits and figures out any taxes you owe based on that assumption. So, here in Canada at least, some % of that $900k would not get taxed, and the rest would be taxed based on a set of rules that are outside of the scope of this conversation.
But why are they assuming you made $900k in profits? You really made $500k in profits. The initial value of what you invested was worth half of what you ended up cashing out. Shouldn't the profits that get taxed here be half of what you cashed out? Your investment doubled in value - surely your profits here are the equivalent of $500k in today's $? And surely that's what should be used in the calculations that determine how much tax you owe?
Let's please ignore answers like "The government is lazy and greedy and they suck" or whatever. I mean, if that's really what's going on, sure, but it just seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the question. From what i've gathered this is the way this is calculated in many different countries, and surely not all governments are equally greedy.
Am I missing something here in terms of the mathematics? Can you explain it to me? Why are your taxable profits considered to be a lot higher than what they actually are, in terms of raw value? Shouldn't you be getting taxed on the raw value of your profits?
I am looking for either a historical or mathematical/financial answer. So.. something like: "It's done like this because in 1923 yada yada" or "Oh you are just missing this key mathematical piece of the puzzle, which is..".. or both
Thanks!
Say you invested $100,000 in 1975. For sake of arguing let's say that this is the equivalent of $500,000 in today's $, due to inflation. Assume Canadian or American currency, it doesn't really matter.
Let's also say this investment grew over the years and is now worth $1,000,000, in today's $.
To summarize, you invested something that in today's $ is worth $500k and doubled it in value. If you ignore inflation, your $100,000 grew 10x fold, but in terms of the raw value of the money invested, it has doubled in value.
Say you cash out that $1M. This is a taxable event, so the government will want to tax you on the profits. The government calculates that to be $900,000 in profits and figures out any taxes you owe based on that assumption. So, here in Canada at least, some % of that $900k would not get taxed, and the rest would be taxed based on a set of rules that are outside of the scope of this conversation.
But why are they assuming you made $900k in profits? You really made $500k in profits. The initial value of what you invested was worth half of what you ended up cashing out. Shouldn't the profits that get taxed here be half of what you cashed out? Your investment doubled in value - surely your profits here are the equivalent of $500k in today's $? And surely that's what should be used in the calculations that determine how much tax you owe?
Let's please ignore answers like "The government is lazy and greedy and they suck" or whatever. I mean, if that's really what's going on, sure, but it just seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the question. From what i've gathered this is the way this is calculated in many different countries, and surely not all governments are equally greedy.
Am I missing something here in terms of the mathematics? Can you explain it to me? Why are your taxable profits considered to be a lot higher than what they actually are, in terms of raw value? Shouldn't you be getting taxed on the raw value of your profits?
I am looking for either a historical or mathematical/financial answer. So.. something like: "It's done like this because in 1923 yada yada" or "Oh you are just missing this key mathematical piece of the puzzle, which is..".. or both
Thanks!
EnglishEdward
Deity
It is because it suits the government to get more money by also taxing you on the inflation of your assets.
Narz
keeping it real
Thanks I'll be in US later this month good thing to look into
Ireland used to allow the indexation of the cost before calculating the tax on the gain for capital assets like that. It was stopped in 2002. The government of the time wanted to collect a lower rate from a wider base to increase the total tax take so it did away with the indexation.
Practically inflation had fallen to a stable level compared to the 80s so it was less of an issue too.
There was no great protest from the public as I remember as those that would pay the extra tax would generally be those selling an asset other than their family home.
Practically inflation had fallen to a stable level compared to the 80s so it was less of an issue too.
There was no great protest from the public as I remember as those that would pay the extra tax would generally be those selling an asset other than their family home.
I don't know anything about Canadian tax law. From a US perspective though I can make a few comments.
- Is this hypothetical situation about stocks/bonds type of investments of hard assets like a house?
- Were you the sole owner during the 50 year span?
- Did the investment produce any taxable income during the investment time?
- In the US the capital gain is based on the difference between the cost basis ($/share) in 1975 and the share vale at sale (new $/share) and not the absolute value.
- Buying power is irrelevant to the situation.
- In the US the absolute value of the investment doesn't matter.
Examples: My FiL worked for Mobil Oil for many years and over those years he accumulated stock at a variety of values. When he died his wife got the stock at a stepped up value on the date of his death. Lets assume for this that new value was $45/share. When she died 20 years later her children split the shares and got a new stepped up value of $63/share. When my wife sold her shares after holding them for a year for $90/share, her capital gain was $27/share. If we assume 1000 shares then her taxable capital gain was $27,000.
I bought Apple stock when it split a few years ago for $111/share. Today apple is at $171/share. Were I to sell 100 shares today and get $17,100 dollars, my capital gain would be $60/share (171-111 = 60) x 100 or $6000 and I would be taxed on that.
Last edited:
warpus
In pork I trust
Let's say the hypothetical includes any sort of situation in which you are taxed on profits of an investment you made, no matter what sort of investment that is. I understand that this might lead to a variety of different ways in which you get taxed, depending on the nature of the investment and asset. But let's say all I care about here is figuring out why inflation isn't taken into account, when it seems that it should.
In your first scenario, my question is basically.. Why are you getting taxed on gains that might not actually be gains? If you invested $45 a share and cashed out when the shares were worth $63.. but due to inflation you actually lost money overall.. What's the reason you are getting taxed on profits that don't really exist, in terms of the value? If the $45/share invested is actually $65/share in today's $, and you cash out at $63/share, you have actually lost value overall. Yet you get taxed anyhow. What's the rationale? Is it really as simple as: "Governments suck and want your money" or is there more to it?
The reason I ask is because.. well.. let's say you bought 10 shares of Pear computing company at $100 a pop 20 years ago. This was a certain amount of value that you acquired, namely $1,000 worth of value in 2004's dollars. If this is equivalent to $2,000 today, why would you get taxed if you cash out when the shares are worth $150 a pop? You lost money, yet you are getting taxed on "profits".
I was curious if there was some part of the math I was missing or if it's as simple as "Well, they just want your money, so suck it up"
That's really interesting, I'll have to read up on that. Was it then the norm at some point in time when more countries did it the old way? i.e. keeping inflation in mind when taxing your capital gains. Or was Ireland an outlier in this regard?
I don't know much about other countries practically- Taxation varies quite a lot from country to country. Tax knowledge is generally very localised.
Ireland and the UK have very similar fundamental structures because of our history.
Here is a brief history from the UK'S tax authorities: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg17200
Short version, no indexation before the 80s, indexation was introduced in the 80s due to the high inflation of the 70s and pressure from legal cases, indexation withdrawn in 2008.
I should note that indexation still remains in Irish tax law for the relevant period. If say someone sold today a commercial property they bought in 1980, indexation would apply to the value between 1980 and 2002 and then stops. The 'tax' cost today to calculate the gain would be the value indexed to 2002.
Tax codes make an attempt to be uniform, objective and easily calculated. Inflation is any but that. Purchasing power is uneven across product categories and can fluctuate wildly. If I don't drive very much and gas prices go to $5 per gallon, it doesn't affect me like it affects a commuter. There are also multiple gauges of inflation that have different results. By linking capital gains to share price or some other actual cost and the change in that cost (today's price) the whole process is simpler. If I bought it for $25/share and sold it at $10/share, I lost $15/share and will pay no tax on the sale.
A change from $45/share to $63/share is a gain of $18/share. If we paid $140,000 for our house in 1992 and then sold it for $450,000 in 2023, that is a gain of $310,000. For homes, though there is an exemption of $250,000 ($500,000 if married) so not capital gains would be owed. Tax laws are looking for uniformity and ease of assessing. Inflation is just too messy an input. When you acquired Pear computing 20 years ago, you did not get $1000 of actual value. You bought 10 pieces of paper (shares). You perceived the value was a good deal at $100/share. Two weeks later the "value" was likely different. 20 years later the market value was certainly different. Investment prices are typically at some "market value" and not priced at some purchasing power value unrelated to the market.
It is not just because "they want your money". It is because they need a simple way to calculate gains and losses and use price changes in a specific market place to do so. You want to "change the rules" to avoid paying taxes. That is pretty common. You have had this investment now for almost 50 years and I assume left it alone this whole time and not paid any attention to what happens if you were to sell. Now that selling is on the table, tax shock? rears its ugly head. That is why there is a market for tax attorneys! If you win
$100 million lottery you can take ~50% now as cash or all (or much more) of it over 20 years. There is a way to calculate the future value of money or the present value of future income. But in both of those one has to assume some rate of inflation (discount rate). If you change that rate the value changes. Such guess work is ill suited for tax calculations.
warpus
In pork I trust
I can definitely appreciate wanting to keep the tax code simple. I did not consider that introducing inflation would make it too complex. So I suppose that is the answer I was looking for. Although, it seems that Ireland did keep inflation in mind, up to a point, unless I have misunderstood that post. So it seems like a workable approach that's not too complex is possible in some cases, no? Was it easier in Ireland due to the the smaller size of that country, economy, etc.? Or did they eventually get rid of it because it wasn't workable in the long term?
It still seems wrong to me to charge someone tax on something that's lost value, even though the price went up, though. I am not looking to avoid taxes, I am not in the situation where I can cash in on any investments. It just seems wrong to me, at first glance, to charge someone taxes on profits that are actually not profits at all when you examine the situation closer. i.e. the value of the investment going down, while the price goes up (due to inflation). If you buy a stock for $100 and all of a sudden there's massive inflation and the cost of everything doubles overnight, you then selling that stock for $200 yields you no profits at all. Yet you'd be taxed on the $100 that's a "profit". See what I mean?
Here in Canada we actually don't pay taxes on lottery winnings at all. But that's another tangent.
Similar threads
