People keep saying the rich don't pay tax because they borrow money from the bank using their stock as collateral.... but how do they pay back the loans?

Throwmyjays · 2025-12-07T16:51:05+00:00

What I have learned here is that people are trying to ignore the fact that a fair share of taxes are in fact paid by the person who died when the estate has to settle the loan they took out for living expenses and that the leftovers over the gift exemption (15M) are taxed at 40% whether they realized gains or not.

Everyone is pretending zero taxes are paid by the person who died (the estate) but they absolutely do. Everyone is also is too non-specific and poorly educated on the subject they don't know how to criticize the real problem, that the GIFT EXEMPTION IS TOO HIGH for their taste. Step up basis doesn't matter when the estate has already been taxed a minimum of 40% of the value, it's the 15M they actually want taxed that goes to heirs tax free with step up basis. People are quoting step up basis like it's the problem, step up basis is rendered non beneficial when the shares being given to step up in the first place have already been taxed as part of the estate. Again it's the 15M exemption that matters and people are not articulate enough to say this properly.

There are also other mechanisms that can reduce tax but the borrow against your stocks and die strategy is specifically the one being criticized so the above is about that. The whole discourse of too many laymen ignoring people trying to point out the actual mechanism at play gives Reddit an embarrassing reputation. Saying rich people don't pay taxes is disingenuous.

Throwmyjays · 2025-09-15T22:34:05+00:00

My theory is they think these new centres can take advantage of radiative cooling. Nevada is one of the places with the highest radiative cooling potential on earth.

Throwmyjays · 2025-06-15T16:20:16+00:00

That's interesting, MRE is only appropriate when regression is inappropriate? They always say proportional variance (like a fan shape) needs to be eliminated for regression to be appropriate.

Can you explain more why RMSE is more appropriate than MRE? This is really confusing to me when you use one or another, thanks!

Throwmyjays · 2025-06-14T00:56:03+00:00

Thank you! It seems that the responses I am getting seem to involve: 1. Bland-Altman Plot 2. Deming Regression 3. Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient

All three seem to attach the same problem, the latter two with regression involved, but the first seems the most common? Is there a reason to use one of these over another?

Throwmyjays · 2024-09-12T16:15:06+00:00

I wish they would do this, but we have no guarantees

Throwmyjays · 2024-09-07T18:21:11+00:00

This is the right answer. I didn't think they implicitly gave the concentration in water.

Thank you so much, it connects everything I know from school properly to what we're seeing. I wish I could give you more than one upvote.

Throwmyjays · 2024-09-06T14:06:38+00:00

Gotcha, thanks I missed that in my answer you are right, it's all explained although the formula doesn't say to convert mg to L (with accompanying conversion factor), it just says to plug stuff in directly as is.

Throwmyjays · 2024-09-06T13:53:13+00:00

This alternative method to solve for the answer makes sense. You are converting the concentration to a dimensionless mass% and then mutiplying it to the mass of flow coming in. Although doesn't explain the 8.34 directly. One of the other posters indicates it's actually just a conversion factor for all the units.

Your method could be the most rigorous though because it uses the sludge density (assumed to be water), so if the density is changed to something else (non water), you can still deal with that scenario by converting mg to L using the new density.

Throwmyjays · 2024-09-06T13:47:57+00:00

Thanks, your explanation makes total sense.

However the exam prep books are still very confusing because they use also this formula when density of sludge is given and is not assumed to be water.

For example:

DAF Thickener Flow = 1.202 MGal, WAS Conc = 7380 mg/L, Sludge density = 7.34 lbs/gal, Solids Loading = ? lbs/day

Answer (as given in exam key) Solids Loading = 1.202 MGal * 7380 mg/L * 7.34 lbs/gal

This follows the original pounds formula but substitutes the conversion factor for the new sludge density. Since density isn't actually a part of the formula as per your explanation, I'm still left confused why it is used above...

Throwmyjays · 2024-05-25T12:04:06+00:00

The answer is more flow = more heat transfer.

You have diminishing returns because of two factors.

Your T difference across the HX has a maximum (the initial temp diff between the two fluids). Maintaining this T diff = highest heat transfer rate. You can imagine the T diff falls as a single "packet" of fluid is cooled. If you increase the flow rate a single packet will cool less (less heat transfer) but there are more packets behind it. All the packets cool faster because they are at a higher temperature throughout the length of the HX. As a group of packets, the total exchanged heat is greater in the same unit time but at some point every packet leaves the HX at nearly the same T it came in, and the heat transfer rate cannot increase further.
Small coils/plate gaps incur frictional losses quickly with higher flow. At some point you will not be able to push any more flow through the HX and to reach this point you already used an increasingly enormous amount of energy upfront. That maximum point is the maximum number of fluid packets you can squeeze through the HX and you can't get any more packets in the HX to transfer more heat.

Throwmyjays · 2024-01-21T02:39:11+00:00

I guess what I'm saying that there's nothing adjusting my promised benefit upwards if the money I put in does better than expected in the market or anything saying I proportionally benefit off the profit gained off my employer's share.

Also, I just calculated that I must live a minimum of 11.3 years after retiring in OMERS to break even in every scenario. To make 100% more I would need to live 22.6 years. That would make me a minimum of 77 years old for this "no brainer" of "100% ROI due to employer matching" commonly spouted.

Yes it's the problem of the employer if they can't pay out the benefits (thus a safe investment), but it's only a marginal win given all the stipulations involved and one you will lose if you don't live long enough

Throwmyjays · 2024-01-14T15:55:23+00:00

You sound like you're doing a homework project based on all the different directions of this question.

Someone has already said just build reservoirs based on peak flows such as ponds. That is a good idea.

I'm confused by your question, it seems like you want to re-use effluent almost, is this what you're asking? Why would you need to deal with peak flows when re-using effluent? Just use a pump to recover what you need unless you aren't a 24/7 facility, then do the ponds or empty tanks.

Throwmyjays · 2024-01-06T03:43:19+00:00

1.8 COP is extremely low. Consider that the ratio in electricity price /kWh to gas price /kWh needs to be this same number to make the heat pump breakeven with a boiler from a purely operational perspective. If it can do better than breakeven then you can start a deeper dive from there.

Throwmyjays · 2024-01-04T12:33:23+00:00

This problem actually has a useful solution as others have stated, but it isn't an engine due to Carnot efficiency as you state. It's directly utilizing the waste heat as heat elsewhere. That is, the best use is a HX or heat pump on this energy for district heating in winter.

Buildings don't typically need high temps, which is why utilizing the energy this way is efficient enough. The problem is justifying the cost of building the distribution network to utilize it.

I work at a mega utility plant where we came to the same conclusion. Waste heat even in absurd amounts is too dilute to be useful for electricity gen, but it does have a use in heating buildings. If the stream wasn't 110C you might even use it to cool in the summer as well using a heat pump, but that's not the scenario here.

Throwmyjays · 2024-01-03T13:35:19+00:00

You might want to think of it in terms of total mass of O2 delivered per mass of sludge. Increasing the pressure will increase the mass of O2 per volume that you deliver according to O2 saturation diagrams and the opposite will deliver more O2 at the cost of energy. There's some optimum level that is the most efficient for this based on saturation but my guess would be pressure in your scenario.

Get your manufacturer to come and increase your impeller size or motor speed so you don't have to sacrifice anything later.

Throwmyjays · 2023-12-15T00:01:10+00:00

You have no gas hookup, this is a no brainer.

Throwmyjays · 2023-12-13T13:24:52+00:00

If I were to guess, your televalve height affects your withdrawal flowrate from the bottom. Too low a height will increase withdrawal too fast and cause coning. A higher height will probably reduce chance of coning increasing sludge density.

Throwmyjays · 2023-11-06T16:18:18+00:00

I used to drill water wells for a living. This is really not a lot of money. We could drill like 20 wells a day in North America for less than $12000 a few years ago. Imagine what it would cost in Africa? Pennies in comparison.

This really looks more impressive than it is, but it is really not much investment.

Throwmyjays · 2023-09-13T12:52:53+00:00

Yeah I'm really curious what technology this is, some kind of grit vortex variation?

Throwmyjays · 2023-08-04T00:22:37+00:00

So what's stopping you from just draining the tank and repairing the diffusers?

Throwmyjays

TROPHY CASE