@adamnash @RyanLEllis @Noahpinion Remember, they're not getting "shares" in the overall (generally large) fund the way you do with RSUs. If it liquidates at a breakeven or loss they get nothing.

@adamnash @RyanLEllis @Noahpinion 请记住，他们并没有像您使用 RSU 那样获得整体（通常很大）资金的“份额”。如果它在盈亏平衡或亏损时清算，他们将一无所获。

@adamnash @RyanLEllis @Noahpinion Economically it's not much different. Yes the warrant (or more likely some partnership interest at low preference, similar optionality) would be taxed but probably at a very low effective rate (due to low or no intrinsic value).

@adamnash @RyanLEllis @Noahpinion 在经济上并没有太大的不同。是的，认股权证（或者更可能是一些低优先权的合伙权益，类似的选择性）将被征税，但可能以非常低的有效税率（由于内在价值低或没有内在价值）。

@JeremyTColes @ArmandDoma It's actually pretty likely that, or something like it, is what would happen if the "loophole" didn't exist.

@JeremyTColes @ArmandDoma 实际上，如果“漏洞”不存在，很可能会发生这种情况或类似情况。

@JeremyTColes @ArmandDoma It's not really that different from paying the partners a token amount (which would be taxed) and then having them invest that token amount back into the deal in a lower tranche (which would be taxed as capital gains later).

@JeremyTColes @ArmandDoma 这与向合作伙伴支付代币金额（将被征税）然后让他们将代币金额以较低的部分投资回交易（稍后将作为资本收益征税）并没有太大区别。

@adamnash @RyanLEllis @Noahpinion It's an investment. You could look at it as getting a tiny amount of cash (which would be taxed) and then putting that cash back into the deal. The amount of cash you'd have to put back is low because there hasn't been any appreciation yet.

@adamnash @RyanLEllis @Noahpinion 这是一项投资。您可以将其视为获得少量现金（将被征税），然后将这笔现金重新投入交易。您必须放回的现金数量很少，因为还没有任何升值。

@adamnash There's a big difference. RSUs have intrinsic value. That's what you're taxed at. Carried interest is more like an option, and there is no intrinsic value when granted (if the deal unwinds without a profit, CI generally gets nothing). More like options.

@adamnash 有很大的不同。 RSU 具有内在价值。那就是你的税。附带权益更像是一种期权，授予时没有内在价值（如果交易在没有利润的情况下平仓，CI 通常一无所获）。更像选项。

@JeremyTColes @ArmandDoma I'm not arguing for a policy, but a reasonable response to your comment would be to reduce or eliminate some of those subsidizes and accounting scams.

@JeremyTColes @ArmandDoma 我不是在争论一项政策，但对您的评论的合理回应是减少或消除其中一些补贴和会计诈骗。

@Timg528 @CCriserie @alexmeshkin Which means OSHA probably won't be mandating monkeypox vaccine or testing across all workplaces (or a CDC eviction moratorium). That's not a significant limitation on the overall scope of response.

@Timg528 @CCriserie @alexmeshkin 这意味着 OSHA 可能不会强制要求接种猴痘疫苗或在所有工作场所进行测试（或 CDC 暂停驱逐）。这不是对整体响应范围的重大限制。

@JStein_WaPo And then his party passed and he signed a tax cut that kept it.

@JStein_WaPo 然后他的政党通过了，他签署了一项保留它的减税政策。

@ArmandDoma I don't know about 'official' but the economic argument is that people receiving carried interest risk their compensation for an extended holding period, often many years. That's a hybrid between regular cash pay and capital gains, so the "right" tax treatment isn't obvious.

@ArmandDoma我不知道“官方”，但经济论点是，接受附带利息的人冒着延长持有期（通常是多年）的风险。这是常规现金工资和资本收益的混合体，因此“正确”的税收待遇并不明显。

@_LeoIzmir @JenniferJJacobs @PressSec Wrong. He has a cough.

@_LeoIzmir @JenniferJJacobs @PressSec 错了。他有咳嗽。

@DaisukeNakatomi @tylerblack32 "Reporting rate" is not causal. It means something happened after taking vaccine. Headache, GI symptoms, rash, etc. Many of these are incidental. Some are not even real (they're not verified at all).
Controlled studies don't show it, at all. You're either misled or a troll.

@DaisukeNakatomi @tylerblack32 “报告率”不是因果关系。这意味着接种疫苗后发生了一些事情。头痛、胃肠道症状、皮疹等。其中许多是偶然的。有些甚至不是真实的（根本没有经过验证）。
对照研究根本没有显示出来。你要么被误导，要么是个巨魔。

@kmhlpn @JenniferJJacobs @PressSec They don't say that. The advice against testing <90 days is for a diagnostic PCR test. There are several CDC recommendations to use antigen tests to exit isolation. Those are only positive with a high viral load, for most people negative by 10 days or so.

@kmhlpn @JenniferJJacobs @PressSec 他们没有这么说。反对测试的建议

@_LeoIzmir @JenniferJJacobs @PressSec False. They're using antigen tests which are only positive with a high viral load, not remaining traces. Most people test negative after 10 days or so.

@_LeoIzmir @JenniferJJacobs @PressSec 错误。他们使用的抗原测试仅在病毒载量高时呈阳性，而不是残留痕迹。大多数人在 10 天左右后检测呈阴性。

@DelusionalWrit @JenniferJJacobs @PressSec That will only happen with the antigen tests they're (correctly) using to exit isolation if he's immunocompromised. A positive antigen test requires a high viral load, not merely the small traces of virus that can be positive with PCR.

@DelusionalWrit @JenniferJJacobs @PressSec 如果他的免疫功能低下，那只会发生在他们（正确）用来退出隔离的抗原测试中。阳性抗原测试需要高病毒载量，而不仅仅是 PCR 可以呈阳性的少量病毒。

@JFlumph @krupali @JenniferJJacobs @PressSec To test negative with antigen test meaning no longer high viral load and most probably contagious.

@JFlmph @krupali @JenniferJJacobs @PressSec 用抗原测试检测阴性意味着不再高病毒载量并且很可能具有传染性。

@DaisukeNakatomi @tylerblack32 No it doesn't. 1 in 5000 report "something" happened AFTER the vaccine, but not necessarily "effects" of the vaccine at all. The below explains it reasonably well.
Take note of where you got that incorrect claim and consider it an unreliable source.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022...

@DaisukeNakatomi @tylerblack32 不，它没有。 5000 人中有 1 人报告“某事”发生在疫苗之后，但不一定是疫苗的“效果”。下面解释得相当好。
记下您在哪里得到了错误的声明，并将其视为不可靠的来源。
https://www.factcheck.org/2022...

@themediawitch @FoeEntropy @internetuserf12 It was passed on a party line vote, after failing to negotiate a bipartisan bill. He could have had it if he wanted it.

@themediawitch @FoeEntropy @internetuserf12 在未能就两党法案进行谈判后，它在党派路线投票中获得通过。如果他想要的话，他可以得到它。

@LadyDi53086 @vvalkyri @alexmeshkin Ask him.

@LadyDi53086 @vvalkyri @alexmeshkin 问他。

@LadyDi53086 @vvalkyri @alexmeshkin This has nothing to do with the government, it's a private company offering a self test product.

@LadyDi53086 @vvalkyri @alexmeshkin 这与政府无关，它是一家提供自检产品的私人公司。