Thứ Bảy, 31 tháng 3, 2018

Waching daily Mar 31 2018

An income tax is a tax imposed on individuals or entities (taxpayers) that varies with their

respective income or profits (taxable income).

Many jurisdictions refer to income tax on business entities as companies tax or corporate

tax.

Partnerships generally are not taxed; rather, the partners are taxed on their share of partnership

items.

Tax may be imposed by both a country and subdivisions.

Most jurisdictions exempt locally organized charitable organizations from tax.

Income tax generally is computed as the product of a tax rate times taxable income.

The tax rate may increase as taxable income increases (referred to as graduated or progressive

rates).

Taxation rates may vary by type or characteristics of the taxpayer.

Capital gains may be taxed at different rates than other income.

Credits of various sorts may be allowed that reduce tax.

Some jurisdictions impose the higher of an income tax or a tax on an alternative base

or measure of income.

Taxable income of taxpayers resident in the jurisdiction is generally total income less

income producing expenses and other deductions.

Generally, only net gain from sale of property, including goods held for sale, is included

in income.

Income of a corporation's shareholders usually includes distributions of profits from the

corporation.

Deductions typically include all income producing or business expenses including an allowance

for recovery of costs of business assets.

Many jurisdictions allow notional deductions for individuals, and may allow deduction of

some personal expenses.

Most jurisdictions either do not tax income earned outside the jurisdiction or allow a

credit for taxes paid to other jurisdictions on such income.

Nonresidents are taxed only on certain types of income from sources within the jurisdictions,

with few exceptions.

Most jurisdictions require self-assessment of the tax and require payers of some types

of income to withhold tax from those payments.

Advance payments of tax by taxpayers may be required.

Taxpayers not timely paying tax owed are generally subject to significant penalties, which may

include jail for individuals or revocation of an entity's legal existence.

History: The concept of taxing income is a modern innovation

and presupposes several things: a money economy, reasonably accurate accounts, a common understanding

of receipts, expenses and profits, and an orderly society with reliable records.

For most of the history of civilization, these preconditions did not exist, and taxes were

based on other factors.

Taxes on wealth, social position, and ownership of the means of production (typically land

and slaves) were all common.

Practices such as tithing, or an offering of first fruits, existed from ancient times,

and can be regarded as a precursor of the income tax, but they lacked precision and

certainly were not based on a concept of net increase.

Early examples: The first income tax is generally attributed

to Egypt.

In the early days of the Roman Republic, public taxes consisted of modest assessments on owned

wealth and property.

The tax rate under normal circumstances was 1% and sometimes would climb as high as 3%

in situations such as war.

These modest taxes were levied against land, homes and other real estate, slaves, animals,

personal items and monetary wealth.

The more a person had in property, the more tax they paid.

Taxes were collected from individuals.

In the year 10 AD, Emperor Wang Mang of the Xin Dynasty instituted an unprecedented income

tax, at the rate of 10 percent of profits, for professionals and skilled labor.

He was overthrown 13 years later in 23 AD and earlier policies were restored during

the reestablished Han Dynasty which followed.

One of the first recorded taxes on income was the Saladin tithe introduced by Henry

II in 1188 to raise money for the Third Crusade.

The tithe demanded that each layperson in England and Wales be taxed one tenth of their

personal income and moveable property.

Modern era: United Kingdom:

The inception date of the modern income tax is typically accepted as 1799, at the suggestion

of Henry Beeke, the future Dean of Bristol.

This income tax was introduced into Great Britain by Prime Minister William Pitt the

Younger in his budget of December 1798, to pay for weapons and equipment for the French

Revolutionary War.

Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the

pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (equivalent to £5,800 in 2016), and increased up to a

maximum of 2 shillings in the pound (10%) on incomes of over £200.

Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million a year, but actual receipts for

1799 totalled only a little over £6 million.

Pitt's income tax was levied from 1799 to 1802, when it was abolished by Henry Addington

during the Peace of Amiens.

Addington had taken over as prime minister in 1801, after Pitt's resignation over Catholic

Emancipation.

The income tax was reintroduced by Addington in 1803 when hostilities with France recommenced,

but it was again abolished in 1816, one year after the Battle of Waterloo.

Opponents of the tax, who thought it should only be used to finance wars, wanted all records

of the tax destroyed along with its repeal.

Records were publicly burned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but copies were retained

in the basement of the tax court.

In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, income tax was reintroduced by Sir

Robert Peel by the Income Tax Act 1842.

Peel, as a Conservative, had opposed income tax in the 1841 general election, but a growing

budget deficit required a new source of funds.

The new income tax, based on Addington's model, was imposed on incomes above £150 (equivalent

to £12,959 in 2016),.

Although this measure was initially intended to be temporary, it soon became a fixture

of the British taxation system.

A committee was formed in 1851 under Joseph Hume to investigate the matter, but failed

to reach a clear recommendation.

Despite the vociferous objection, William Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer from

1852, kept the progressive income tax, and extended it to cover the costs of the Crimean

War.

By the 1860s, the progressive tax had become a grudgingly accepted element of the English

fiscal system.

United States: The US federal government imposed the first

personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, to help pay for its war effort in the American

Civil War - (3% of all incomes over US$800) (equivalent to $21,800 in 2017).

This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862.

It was only in 1894 that the first peacetime income tax was passed through the Wilson-Gorman

tariff.

The rate was 2% on income over $4000 (equivalent to $113,000 in 2017), which meant fewer than

10% of households would pay any.

The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff

reductions.

The US Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional, the 10th amendment forbidding

any powers not expressed in the US Constitution, and there being no power to impose any other

than a direct tax by apportionment.

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a

permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the

billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920.

The amount of income collected via income tax has varied dramatically, from 1% in the

early days of US income tax to taxation rates of over 90% during WW2.

Common principles: While tax rules vary widely, there are certain

basic principles common to most income tax systems.

Tax systems in Canada, China, Germany, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States,

among others, follow most of the principles outlined below.

Some tax systems, such as India, may have significant differences from the principles

outlined below.

Most references below are examples; see specific articles by jurisdiction (e.g., Income tax

in Australia).

Taxpayers and rates: Individuals are often taxed at different rates

than corporations.

Individuals include only human beings.

Tax systems in countries other than the USA treat an entity as a corporation only if it

is legally organized as a corporation.

Estates and trusts are usually subject to special tax provisions.

Other taxable entities are generally treated as partnerships.

In the USA, many kinds of entities may elect to be treated as a corporation or a partnership.

Partners of partnerships are treated as having income, deductions, and credits equal to their

shares of such partnership items.

Separate taxes are assessed against each taxpayer meeting certain minimum criteria.

Many systems allow married individuals to request joint assessment.

Many systems allow controlled groups of locally organized corporations to be jointly assessed.

Tax rates vary widely.

Some systems impose higher rates on higher amounts of income.

Example: Elbonia taxes income below E.10,000 at 20% and other income at 30%.

Joe has E.15,000 of income.

His tax is E.3,500.

Tax rates schedules may vary for individuals based on marital status.

Residents and nonresidents: Residents are generally taxed differently

from nonresidents.

Few jurisdictions tax nonresidents other than on specific types of income earned within

the jurisdiction.

See, e.g., the discussion of taxation by the United States of foreign persons.

Residents, however, are generally subject to income tax on all worldwide income.[notes

1] A very few countries (notably Singapore and Hong Kong) tax residents only on income

earned in or remitted to the country.

Residence is often defined for individuals as presence in the country for more than 183

days.

Most countries base residence of entities on either place of organization or place of

management and control.

The United Kingdom has three levels of residence.

Defining income: Most systems define income subject to tax

broadly for residents, but tax nonresidents only on specific types of income.

What is included in income for individuals may differ from what is included for entities.

The timing of recognizing income may differ by type of taxpayer or type of income.

Income generally includes most types of receipts that enrich the taxpayer, including compensation

for services, gain from sale of goods or other property, interest, dividends, rents, royalties,

annuities, pensions, and all manner of other items.

Many systems exclude from income part or all of superannuation or other national retirement

plan payments.

Most tax systems exclude from income health care benefits provided by employers or under

national insurance systems.

Deductions allowed: Nearly all income tax systems permit residents

to reduce gross income by business and some other types of deductions.

By contrast, nonresidents are generally subject to income tax on the gross amount of income

of most types plus the net business income earned within the jurisdiction.

Expenses incurred in a trading, business, rental, or other income producing activity

are generally deductible, though there may be limitations on some types of expenses or

activities.

Business expenses include all manner of costs for the benefit of the activity.

An allowance (as a capital allowance or depreciation deduction) is nearly always allowed for recovery

of costs of assets used in the activity.

Rules on capital allowances vary widely, and often permit recovery of costs more quickly

than ratably over the life of the asset.

Most systems allow individuals some sort of notional deductions or an amount subject to

zero tax.

In addition, many systems allow deduction of some types of personal expenses, such as

home mortgage interest or medical expenses.

Business profits: Only net income from business activities,

whether conducted by individuals or entities is taxable, with few exceptions.

Many countries require business enterprises to prepare financial statements which must

be audited.

Tax systems in those countries often define taxable income as income per those financial

statements with few, if any, adjustments.

A few jurisdictions compute net income as a fixed percentage of gross revenues for some

types of businesses, particularly branches of nonresidents.

Credits: Nearly all systems permit residents a credit

for income taxes paid to other jurisdictions of the same sort.

Thus, a credit is allowed at the national level for income taxes paid to other countries.

Many income tax systems permit other credits of various sorts, and such credits are often

unique to the jurisdiction.

Alternative taxes: Some jurisdictions, particularly the United

States and many of its states and Switzerland, impose the higher of regular income tax or

an alternative tax.

Switzerland and U.S. states generally impose such tax only on corporations and base it

on capital or a similar measure.

Administration: Income tax is generally collected in one of

two ways: through withholding of tax at source and/or through payments directly by taxpayers.

Nearly all jurisdictions require those paying employees or nonresidents to withhold income

tax from such payments.

The amount to be withheld is a fixed percentage where the tax itself is at a fixed rate.

Alternatively, the amount to be withheld may be determined by the tax administration of

the country or by the payer using formulas provided by the tax administration.

Payees are generally required to provide to the payer or the government the information

needed to make the determinations.

Withholding for employees is often referred to as "pay as you earn" (PAYE) or "pay as

you go."

Nearly all systems require those whose proper tax is not fully settled through withholding

to self assess tax and make payments prior to or with final determination of the tax.

Self-assessment means the taxpayer must make a computation of tax and submit it to the

government.

State, provincial, and local: Income taxes are separately imposed by sub-national

jurisdictions in several countries with federal systems.

These include Canada, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States, where provinces, cantons,

or states impose separate taxes.

In a few countries, cities also impose income taxes.

The system may be integrated (as in Germany) with taxes collected at the federal level.

In Quebec and the United States, federal and state systems are independently administered

and have differences in determination of taxable income.

Wage based taxes: Income taxes of workers are often collected

by employers under a withholding or Pay-as-you-earn tax system.

Such collections are not necessarily final amounts of tax, as the worker may be required

to aggregate wage income with other income and/or deductions to determine actual tax.

Calculation of the tax to be withheld may be done by the government or by employers

based on withholding allowances or formulas.

Retirement oriented taxes, such as Social Security or national insurance, also are a

type of income tax, though not generally referred to as such.

These taxes generally are imposed at a fixed rate on wages or self-employment earnings

up to a maximum amount per year.

The tax may be imposed on the employer, the employee, or both, at the same or different

rates.

Some jurisdictions also impose a tax collected from employers, to fund unemployment insurance,

health care, or similar government outlays.

Economic and policy aspects: Multiple conflicting theories have been proposed

regarding the economic impact of income taxes.

Income taxes are widely viewed as a progressive tax (the incidence of tax increases as income

increases).

Criticisms: Tax avoidance strategies and loopholes tend

to emerge within income tax codes.

They get created when taxpayers find legal methods to avoid paying taxes.

Lawmakers then attempt to close the loopholes with additional legislation.

That leads to a vicious cycle of ever more complex avoidance strategies and legislation.

The vicious cycle tends to benefit large corporations and wealthy individuals that can afford the

professional fees that come with ever more sophisticated tax planning, thus challenging

the notion that even a marginal income tax system can be properly called progressive.

The higher costs to labour and capital imposed by income tax causes deadweight loss in an

economy, being the loss of economic activity from people deciding not to invest capital

or use time productively because of the burden that tax would impose on those activities.

There is also a loss from individuals and professional advisors devoting time to tax-avoiding

behaviour instead of economically-productive activities.

Around the world: Income taxes are used in most countries around

the world.

The tax systems vary greatly and can be progressive, proportional, or regressive, depending on

the type of tax.

Comparison of tax rates around the world is a difficult and somewhat subjective enterprise.

Tax laws in most countries are extremely complex, and tax burden falls differently on different

groups in each country and sub-national unit.

Of course, services provided by governments in return for taxation also vary, making comparisons

all the more difficult.

Countries that tax income generally use one of two systems: territorial or residential.

In the territorial system, only local income – income from a source inside the country

– is taxed.

In the residential system, residents of the country are taxed on their worldwide (local

and foreign) income, while nonresidents are taxed only on their local income.

In addition, a very small number of countries, notably the United States, also tax their

nonresident citizens on worldwide income.

Countries with a residential system of taxation usually allow deductions or credits for the

tax that residents already pay to other countries on their foreign income.

Many countries also sign tax treaties with each other to eliminate or reduce double taxation.

Countries do not necessarily use the same system of taxation for individuals and corporations.

For example, France uses a residential system for individuals but a territorial system for

corporations, while Singapore does the opposite, and Brunei taxes corporate but not personal

income.

Transparency and public disclosure: Public disclosure of personal income tax filings

occurs in Finland, Norway and Sweden (as of the late-2000s and early 2010s).

Thanks for watching.

Please, subscribe to our channel.

For more infomation >> What is Income Tax? | Income Tax Explained - Duration: 21:18.

-------------------------------------------

What is High Yield Bond? | Definition of High Yield Bond - Duration: 11:28.

In finance, a high-yield bond (non-investment-grade bond, speculative-grade bond, or junk bond)

is a bond that is rated below investment grade.

These bonds have a higher risk of default or other adverse credit events, but typically

pay higher yields than better quality bonds in order to make them attractive to investors.

Sometimes the company can provide new bonds as a part of yield which can only be redeemed

after its expiry or maturity.

Risk: The holder of any debt is subject to interest

rate risk and credit risk, inflationary risk, currency risk, duration risk, convexity risk,

repayment of principal risk, streaming income risk, liquidity risk, default risk, maturity

risk, reinvestment risk, market risk, political risk, and taxation adjustment risk.

Interest rate risk refers to the risk of the market value of a bond changing due to changes

in the structure or level of interest rates or credit spreads or risk premiums.

The credit risk of a high-yield bond refers to the probability and probable loss upon

a credit event (i.e., the obligor defaults on scheduled payments or files for bankruptcy,

or the bond is restructured), or a credit quality change is issued by a rating agency

including Fitch, Moody's, or Standard & Poors.

A credit rating agency attempts to describe the risk with a credit rating such as AAA.

In North America, the five major agencies are Standard & Poor's, Moody's, Fitch Ratings,

Dominion Bond Rating Service and A.M.

Best.

Bonds in other countries may be rated by US rating agencies or by local credit rating

agencies.

Rating scales vary; the most popular scale uses (in order of increasing risk) ratings

of AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, with the additional rating D for debt already in

arrears.

Government bonds and bonds issued by government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are often considered to

be in a zero-risk category above AAA; and categories like AA and A may sometimes be

split into finer subdivisions like "AA−" or "AA+".

Bonds rated BBB− and higher are called investment grade bonds.

Bonds rated lower than investment grade on their date of issue are called speculative

grade bonds, or colloquially as "junk" bonds.

The lower-rated debt typically offers a higher yield, making speculative bonds attractive

investment vehicles for certain types of portfolios and strategies.

Many pension funds and other investors (banks, insurance companies), however, are prohibited

in their by-laws from investing in bonds which have ratings below a particular level.

As a result, the lower-rated securities have a different investor base than investment-grade

bonds.

The value of speculative bonds is affected to a higher degree than investment grade bonds

by the possibility of default.

For example, in a recession interest rates may drop, and the drop in interest rates tends

to increase the value of investment grade bonds; however, a recession tends to increase

the possibility of default in speculative-grade bonds.

Usage: Corporate debt:

The original speculative grade bonds were bonds that once had been investment grade

at time of issue, but where the credit rating of the issuer had slipped and the possibility

of default increased significantly.

These bonds are called "fallen angels".

The investment banker Michael Milken realized that fallen angels had regularly been valued

less than what they were worth.

His time with speculative grade bonds started with his investment in these.

Only later did he and other investment bankers at Drexel Burnham Lambert, followed by those

of competing firms, begin organizing the issue of bonds that were speculative grade from

the start.

Speculative grade bonds thus became ubiquitous in the 1980s as a financing mechanism in mergers

and acquisitions.

In a leveraged buyout (LBO) an acquirer would issue speculative grade bonds to help pay

for an acquisition and then use the target's cash flow to help pay the debt over time.

In 2005, over 80% of the principal amount of high-yield debt issued by U.S. companies

went toward corporate purposes rather than acquisitions or buyouts.

In emerging markets, such as China and Vietnam, bonds have become increasingly important as

term financing options, since access to traditional bank credits has always been proved to be

limited, especially if borrowers are non-state corporates.

The corporate bond market has been developing in line with the general trend of capital

market, and equity market in particular.

Debt repackaging and subprime crisis: High-yield bonds can also be repackaged into

collateralized debt obligations (CDO), thereby raising the credit rating of the senior tranches

above the rating of the original debt.

The senior tranches of high-yield CDOs can thus meet the minimum credit rating requirements

of pension funds and other institutional investors despite the significant risk in the original

high-yield debt.

When such CDOs are backed by assets of dubious value, such as subprime mortgage loans, and

lose market liquidity, the bonds and their derivatives become what is referred to as

"toxic debt".

Holding such "toxic" assets led to the demise of several investment banks such as Lehman

Brothers and other financial institutions during the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007–09

and led the US Treasury to seek congressional appropriations to buy those assets in September

2008 to prevent a systemic crisis of the banks.

Such assets represent a serious problem for purchasers because of their complexity.

Having been repackaged perhaps several times, it is difficult and time-consuming for auditors

and accountants to determine their true value.

As the recession of 2008–09 bit, their value decreased further as more debtors defaulted,

so they represented a rapidly depreciating asset.

Even those assets that might have gone up in value in the long-term depreciated rapidly,

quickly becoming "toxic" for the banks that held them.

Toxic assets, by increasing the variance of banks' assets, can turn otherwise healthy

institutions into zombies.

Potentially insolvent banks made too few good loans creating a debt overhang problem.

Alternatively, potentially insolvent banks with toxic assets sought out very risky speculative

loans to shift risk onto their depositors and other creditors.

On March 23, 2009, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced a Public-Private

Investment Partnership (PPIP) to buy toxic assets from banks' balance sheets.

The major stock market indexes in the United States rallied on the day of the announcement

rising by over six percent with the shares of bank stocks leading the way.

PPIP has two primary programs.

The Legacy Loans Program will attempt to buy residential loans from banks' balance sheets.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will provide non-recourse loan guarantees

for up to 85 percent of the purchase price of legacy loans.

Private sector asset managers and the U.S. Treasury will provide the remaining assets.

The second program is called the legacy securities program which will buy mortgage backed securities

(RMBS) that were originally rated AAA and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS)

and asset-backed securities (ABS) which are rated AAA.

The funds will come in many instances in equal parts from the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset

Relief Program monies, private investors, and from loans from the Federal Reserve's

Term Asset Lending Facility (TALF).

The initial size of the Public Private Investment Partnership is projected to be $500 billion.

Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul Krugman has been very critical of this program arguing

the non-recourse loans lead to a hidden subsidy that will be split by asset managers, banks'

shareholders and creditors.

Banking analyst Meredith Whitney argues that banks will not sell bad assets at fair market

values because they are reluctant to take asset write downs.

Removing toxic assets would also reduce the volatility of banks' stock prices.

Because stock is akin to a call option on a firm's assets, this lost volatility will

hurt the stock price of distressed banks.

Therefore, such banks will only sell toxic assets at above market prices.

High-yield bond indices: High-yield bond indices exist for dedicated

investors in the market.

Indices for the broad high-yield market include the S&P U.S. Issued High Yield Corporate Bond

Index (SPUSCHY), CSFB High Yield II Index (CSHY), Citigroup US High-Yield Market Index,

the Merrill Lynch High Yield Master II (H0A0), the Barclays High Yield Index, and the Bear

Stearns High Yield Index (BSIX).

Some investors, preferring to dedicate themselves to higher-rated and less-risky investments,

use an index that only includes BB-rated and B-rated securities, such as the Merrill Lynch

Global High Yield BB-B Rated Index (HW40).

Other investors focus on the lowest quality debt rated CCC or distressed securities, commonly

defined as those yielding 1500 basis points over equivalent government bonds.

EU Member-State Debt Crisis: On 27 April 2010, the Greek debt rating was

decreased to "junk" status by Standard & Poor's amidst fears of default by the Greek Government.

They also cut Portugal's credit ratings by two notches to A, over concerns about its

state debt and public finances on 28 April.

On 5 July 2011, Portugal's rating was decreased to "junk" status by Moody's (by four notches

from Baa1 to Ba2) saying there was a growing risk the country would need a second bail-out

before it was ready to borrow money from financial markets again, and private lenders might have

to contribute.

On 13 July 2012, Moody's cut Italy's credit rating two notches, to Baa2 (leaving it just

above junk).

Moody's warned the country it could be cut further.

With the ongoing deleveraging process within the European banking system, many European

CFOs are still issuing high-yield bonds.

As a result, by the end of September 2012, the total amount of annual primary bond issuances

stood at €50 billion.

It is assumed that high-yield bonds are still attractive for companies with a stable funding

base, although the ratings have declined continuously for most of those bonds.

Thanks for watching.

Please, subscribe to our channel.

For more infomation >> What is High Yield Bond? | Definition of High Yield Bond - Duration: 11:28.

-------------------------------------------

Love is in the air: todos los detalles de las cuatro bodas de este 2018 - Duration: 6:41.

For more infomation >> Love is in the air: todos los detalles de las cuatro bodas de este 2018 - Duration: 6:41.

-------------------------------------------

Talent or Training: which is more important? - Duration: 2:59.

On a photography related video, Hanz left a comment "You can't learn talent...

You can only learn methods, but it will never look the same."

Do you agree or disagree?

Leave a comment below and we'll talk about it today at the House of Hacks.

Starting right now!

[Introduction]

Hi! Harley here.

Hanz brought up an interesting idea: what's the difference between people that have natural

ability or talent and people who have an interest in something without the talent and need to

work, learn and practice?

Here's my take on it.

Let's think about this as lines on a graph.

On the Y-axis, we have the outcome of the activity where lower is worse outcome and

higher is better outcome.

On the X-axis, let's plot the amount of work somebody does to work, learn and practice

the activity.

The left side will represent less work.

The right side will represent more work.

Now, let's put two lines on this graph.

One line represents the person that's talented and has natural ability.

And the other line represents the person that doesn't have the natural ability but does

have an interest in the activity.

This is not a scientific graph.

There's no data associated with it.

It's for illustrative purposes only.

As we can see, for the same amount of work, the one with talent is going to outperform

the one with talent.

However, if we look at this from the perspective of the other axis, we can see at some point,

the person without talent that puts in more work can have a better outcome than the person

with talent that doesn't put in as much work.

So what?

What does this all mean?

I think this has to be answered by looking at your goals.

What's the purpose of the outcome?

Is the result of your activity personal satisfaction?

Then the level of output is really only important based on what you want.

So whether you're talented or not is not really relevant.

You're just doing for your own satisfaction.

Is your goal to sell a product or service?

Then the level of the output needs to be consistent with what the market demands.

And the good news is the market is really large with a lot of price points.

The odds of finding a customer needing something where you're at on the outcome side is actually

pretty good.

Now the higher you are on the outcome side, the fewer people you're competing with and

so the more you can charge.

This means hard work can move you up in the marketplace even without natural ability.

What do you think?

I'd love to hear in the comments below.

And as I was looking at this topic, I ran across a couple videos that I thought you

might find interesting.

I'll leave a link to them down in the description.

If this is your first time here at House of Hacks, Welcome!

I'm glad you're here and would love to have you subscribe.

I believe everyone has a God-given creative spark.

Sometimes this manifests through making things with a mechanical or technical bent to them.

I hope to inspire, educate and encourage makers with this kind of creative bent to them.

Usually this involves various physical media like wood, metal, electronics, photography

and other similar materials.

If this sounds interesting to you, go ahead and subscribe and I'll see you again in the

next video.

Thanks for joining me on this creative journey we're on.

Until next time, go make something.

Perfection's not required.

Fun is!

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét