Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

heterocephalusgabler.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#81

Post by viraptor »

gambiting wrote: post #61
ForHackernews wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, talk about black-and-white thinking. Consider: There may be other alternatives that fall between the extremes of "My kids get all the free money I can give them!" and "The government should confiscate all possessions and give everyone a state-sponsored apartment."

Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax. Anything in between doesn't make sense as it it completely arbitrary. Why 10%? Or 60%? Or 85%? If you support the notion that children should work for themselves, then don't let them inherit anything from their parents - in which case, the government has to provide at least a place to live in. If you don't support the notion of taxing inheritance(li…

If it was taxed @ 100%, we'd soon see a country-wide jump in salaries to gardeners and house cleaners. Also, a sudden increase of family businesses...

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#82

Post by mcguire »

gambiting wrote: post #34

Not related,but I would like to mention this regardless: >>No party will suggest the rational solutions: if hard work makes us rich, let’s tax inheritance at 85%, so the children of rich men have to work hard too. But no: that would never do I never understood this argument. I am not rich by any means,but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic - I worked hard to earn…

85% is way steep, but the general idea is necessary. It prevents the development of a de-facto hereditary aristocracy and also prevents the economy from being winner-take-all. (Citation needed; I can't find it at the moment.)

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#83

Post by mcguire »

"The wealthiest families in the UK are those of the Earl of Cadogan and the Duke of Westminster, both of which inherited ownership of prime London real estate. They have done nothing to develop that real estate, nothing to earn it, and their ownership benefits absolutely nobody except for themselves. In fact, their total control pushes housing costs so high that the entire nation has become indebted to pay excessive mortgage costs, simply to protect their ownership of land that is, in national and global terms, economically dormant."

This is completely true, apparently. I was just listening to an Economist podcast episode on real estate in London. Existing housing property cannot be redeveloped for higher density because the existing long-term leases do not come up for renewal at the same time and must be renewable. On the other hand, the freeholder (the one actually owning the property) is in theory responsible for infrastructure but is apparently free from that responsibility in practice.

London sounds worse than San Francisco.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#84

Post by jarrett »

jebus989 wrote: post #36
jarrett wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are Huffington Post's intellectual property terms? That could be a big distinction between Huffington Post and HN. On HN, nobody signs over any IP, nor does the copyright holder necessarily grant a license of any sort. (If you doubt that, consider the fact that I can submit anyone's URL to HN. So submitters aren't assumed to have any authority over the IP.) With periodicals, though, there usually is a contract w…

With HuffPo, you retain ownership of your work and are free to publish it anywhere else.

Good to know. In that case, probably the biggest distinction between HuffPo and HN is that HuffPo displays the content on their own site. For some writers, that might be a plus. For others, it might be a minus.

I've heard some professional writers say you should rarely or ever publish anything (e.g. a blog post) without remuneration. Not because it's wrong to do so, but because they consider it bad business. If they're right, I don't know if that should affect our judgment of a publisher who actively solicits unpaid submissions. Maybe the writers are undervaluing themselves, but then maybe the publisher isn't to blame for that.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#85

Post by markbnj »

thinkt4nk wrote: post #11
markbnj wrote: post #3

I sympathize and share the author's dislike of this particular business model, however, I am fairly certain the Huffpo staffer addressed didn't read past the first paragraph.

On what do you base your fair certainty?

The fact the reply to an offer by an editor started with three or four paragraphs of political ideology.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#86

Post by gdewilde »

Great blog, very enlightening write up.

for as far as I could figure out...

If a for-profit business seeks to employ you without financial compensation they are breaking the law. If you offer your services below minimum wage you are breaking the law. If the worker's services are an integral part of the employer's business the worker is an employee of that company. If the role isn't an essential functions of the company you could be a contractor.

Either way you must pay wages.

Or can the text on pages like these be stretched to say exactly the opposite of what it says?

us: http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp

  Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.
uk: https://www.gov.uk/employment-rights-for-interns

  Employers can’t avoid paying the National Minimum Wage if it’s due by:
    saying or stating that it doesn’t apply
    making a written agreement saying someone isn’t a worker or that they’re a volunteer
The netherlands: http://www.belastingtips.nl/zakelijk/aftrekbare_kosten/vergo...

  Vrijwilliger verricht werkzaamheden voor een organisatie zonder winstoogmerk.
  De organisatie mag geen (bedrijf) B.V. of N.V. zijn, tenzij sportvereniging.
  De vrijwilliger verricht het werk niet als zijn beroep.
translation: Must be a no-profit, must not be the same work as your paid job. You may help relatives for free as long as you are not getting social support.

I'm curious now, how does Hufington Post (New York) do it?

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#87

Post by gnaritas »

viraptor wrote: post #81
gambiting wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax. Anything in between doesn't make sense as it it completely arbitrary. Why 10%? Or 60%? Or 85%? If you support the notion that children should work for themselves, then don't let them inherit anything from their parents - in which case, the government has to provide at least a place to live in. If you don't support the notion of taxing inheritance(li…

If it was taxed @ 100%, we'd soon see a country-wide jump in salaries to gardeners and house cleaners. Also, a sudden increase of family businesses...

None of those avoid taxes; the point of the tax isn't necessarily to collect the money, but to force the person who made it to spend it rather than accumulate it in a family fortune over generations.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#88

Post by JoeAltmaier »

gnaritas wrote: post #78
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but taxes aren't why. Its the rigged financial markets that have swiftly vacuumed up all the money and put it into the hands of those that - guess what - handle money.

There is no one why, there's a host of things that allow wealth accumulation and they all need to be tackled, but inherited wealth produces dangerous people: aristocrats who have no idea what it means to work and no appreciation for those that do, and that cannot be ignored. And without all that wealth accumulation, the financial markets wouldn't be rigged. They were rigged by the wealthy buying politicians to get th…

But the fix is to undo the damage to the markets. At bottom humans are always the problem; but that's not actionable.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#89

Post by gnaritas »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #88
gnaritas wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no one why, there's a host of things that allow wealth accumulation and they all need to be tackled, but inherited wealth produces dangerous people: aristocrats who have no idea what it means to work and no appreciation for those that do, and that cannot be ignored. And without all that wealth accumulation, the financial markets wouldn't be rigged. They were rigged by the wealthy buying politicians to get th…

But the fix is to undo the damage to the markets. At bottom humans are always the problem; but that's not actionable.

Nope, that's just treating a symptom; they'd just immediately break the market again and that's putting aside the point that they own your politicians and simply wouldn't allow you to fix it. Until you deal with severe wealth accumulation, nothing else matters and yes it is actionable. The French lopped off a few heads, it worked.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#90

Post by thinkt4nk »

markbnj wrote: post #85
thinkt4nk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what do you base your fair certainty?

The fact the reply to an offer by an editor started with three or four paragraphs of political ideology.

...the assumption being that the editor has an aversion toward political ideology?
Post reply on HN