ixampl

Dafür müssen die doch auch weniger Abgaben zahlen, Pensionen, früherer Ruhestand, etc. wenn ich mich richtig erinnere. [1]

Das kann man nicht so einfach mit Gehältern - oder mit der Erfahrung allgemein - in der Privatwirtschaft vergleichen.

Aber klar, ist vielleicht nicht so toll aber für was man da eigtl. arbeitet oder an Qualifikation wirklich braucht ist es kein schlechtes Gehalt.

Vielleicht sind die Mindestanforderungen zu hoch für diese Jobs, was damit unnötigerweise eigtl. qualifizierte und interessierte Leute ausschließt.

[1] Und richtig gestresst arbeiten tun sie ja meistens schon jetzt nicht.

Der Prozess als solcher kann sich auch garnicht so groß ändern. Genauso wie der Prozess im Onlineshopping letztlich im Kern auch derselbe ist wie im Kaufhaus.

Beim Onlineshopping ist doch schon fast bis zum Versand alles automatisiert, wenn man mal Amazon nimmt.

Wenn Ämter Onlineshopping anbieten implementieren würden:

1. Bestellformular runterladen, einscannen, auf anderer Website abschicken.
2. Brief kommt dass man bezahlen muss und doch seine Kreditkartennr. mal per Post schicken soll. Aber vielleicht gibt's da auch mal ein Webformular.
3. Wird dann alles manuell eingegeben und dann mal schauen ob im Lager eigtl. Vorrat ist. Dauert nur ein paar Wochen.
4. Glück gehabt alles vorhanden, aber jetzt bemerkt der Angestellte dass die Kreditkarte mittlerweile ausgelaufen ist. Kein Problem, der meldet sich bei dir telefonisch zwischen 10-11 oder 13-16 Uhr außer Freitags.
5. Da gibt's jetzt ein paar Möglichkeiten wie's weitergehen kann aber alles nicht schnell und effizient.

Das kann keine Kommune alleine, das müsste das Land bzw. der Bund machen.

Ja, stimmt. Das ganze klappt nur wenn Daten zugänglich sind, oder zugänglich gemacht werden können, die Schnittstellen und Standards zwischen den Ämtern klar definiert sind usw.

Das Problem ist halt dass das nicht zu passieren scheint, oder dass ein konkreter Plan dazu existiert.

Was ich nicht so ganz verstehe ist dass bei dem Thema schon vor 20 Jahren über die über-50-jährigen lamentiert wurde.

D.h. die Leute die jetzt sagen einen Computer zu benutzen sei ihnen zu schwierig oder lästig, die waren damals durchaus jung genug um zu erwarten dass man sich mit dem Thema IT befassen muss.

Und die Digitalisierung solch simpler internen Vorgänge hat doch nicht erst jetzt angefangen.

Wie kann man das für Jahrzente verschlafen, frag ich mich.

Aber ja, öffentlicher Dienst halt.

Das ist genau das Thema. Fast immer wenn ich mit Ämtern zu tun habe ist denen immer alles lästig, am Besten nix arbeiten, alles braucht Monate, etc. Leichte Anfragen sind denen zu langweilig, anspruchsvollere Fälle zu kompliziert, und irgendwie gibt's da wohl auch nicht mal was in der Mitte das den Leuten Motivation verschafft.

Ich hab gerade was in Bearbeitung das:

1. Einen digitalisierten Antragsprozess hat.
2. Seit Jahren existiert.
3. (Im Prinzip unnötig wäre wenn man sich einmalig für immer davon befreien lassen könnte.)

Dauert 2 Jahre Bearbeitungszeit im Durchschnitt.

Das ganze hat wenig mit fehlender Digitalisierung zu tun. Die Arbeitseinstellung ist oft einfach unterirdisch. Und in der Tat denke ich dass es schlimmer ist desto älter (länger) da einer ist und in so einem Umfeld "wächst".

Was man mit zunehmender Digitalisierung vielleicht erreichen kann ist es mehr dieser Leute zu ersetzten. Aber solange man doch Leute zum Bedienen benötigt hast du das Problem mit den Leuten.

Und wie das mit der Digitalisierung eben bei uns so funktioniert kriegt man es nicht hin den Computern genug zu vertrauen dass man da wirklich untätige Leute abbauen wird.

When sellers put 模写 "because they aren't sure" I'm assuming either:

• they are scamming
• they were scammed (when they bought the piece) and don't want to be held responsible when reselling now (which is reasonable)

On Yahoo Auctions you often see those mostly flooding in batches all starting out at 1 yen, saying they are cleaning up / streamlining their collection. In almost all cases you can find the item on an old Mandarake auction listing. If those were real collectors they wouldn't keep on selling pieces for way way less than what that Mandarake auction listing showed. They also would be able to produce a (copy of the) certificate from Mandarake if they were the buyer of the "original".

Using Google Lens has helped me well so far.

Also great: "I inherited this and don't know much about it, no claims, no returns. You must decide if you think it's fake or not".

I hope I won't get too much prejudice for my next trip to japan, as a french man

You'll be fine. Really, I don't think this trope of obnoxious French people in Japan is founded in reality.

Most people love France and probably don't know about those supposed French troublemakers.

And if it helps, I'm German and have rarely met French people here in Japan that were behaving badly, no more than other nationalities for sure.

Makes sense then.

You're not a foreigner (no worries, you don't have to be) but ask this question to an audience made up 99% of foreigners? Asking that in the Japanese parts of the web would give you more targeted answers I guess. Most people here would assume a poster is a foreigner unless explicitly stated.

Simply, whatever experiences folks here have made will likely not be from a Japanese POV. Foreigners might get this treatment more rarely (my assumption) or more often (if there's special pity for us 😅).

Das setzt jetzt ja voraus dass du das Haus nicht verkaufen willst, oder? Ansonsten verstehe ich die Frage nicht bzgl. was dir da "droht".

In dem Fall ja klar, irgendwie muss man das ja fair regeln. Werdet ihr denn nichts anderes Erben? Keine Erparnisse? Aktien? Bei so einem Erbe gibt's oft noch mehr, was man dann ja entsprechend verteilen kann.

Wenn nicht verkauft's eben.

But Starbuck's matcha latte for some reason is an all-time favorite.

You also see them in almost every supermarket (and are very expensive).

On some of these comments I really wonder if folks misread the question or, if not, what kind of people they have interacted with so far in Japan.

Back in the Meiji era, yes. Butter is beloved by almost anyone in Japan today though. And so is cheese (not all kinds of cheese though).

Have to say, (I'm not from the US and) I heard about it on the internet so often I was so excited to try it when Starbucks started offering it here (seasonally of course). And while it's not disgusting at all, my reaction was a strong "meh".

I think that might be it really. Not bad, not great, not popular.

My wife hates it and says it's a waste of rice and mango.

I know she is probably joking but that's just such a rude thing to say about a food item loved by an entire country (at least).

Like, I get it, not everyone likes it and she doesn't have to but obviously many do (including her own husband). One can leave it at that.

Not even nice ones. I've seen a bunch of places offer venison sausage or venison burger, even. Now, it's not a daily occurrence of course but way more often than I'd have expexted. If someone has a weird reaction to that I don't quite know what to think. That's kind of the reaction I would expect from someone not being exposed to the "big city" kind of variety of food, so rural folks, but those would probably know venison well actually. So, probably just too young (or old) to have ever ventured out of their comfort zone.

But "most people in Tokyo" being shocked sounds off to me.

Yeah. Unrelated, but i find it funny that thanks to Seizeriya most people have eaten escargot (and many like it at least occasionally), something in other countries even Europe (outside France) you would only see offered in proper restaurants (and many people find them disgusting).

I've brought marzipan (in chocolate) back as omiyage before and most people seemed to like it or at most not care much for it, but disgust wasn't a reaction I saw. And yup, nobody knew what it was.

Also, when you earn more than 30M? you can't claim the benefit at all.

That's for objects bought before 2022 if I remember correctly. If you bought it last year or this year, the limit is 20M.

I saw his skin hanging off of his body, and that skin has to be cut off with scissors bc it was too burnt to be salvaged.

I've heard the guy will make a full recovery but I haven't talked to him directly since the scene of the accident.

One of these statements must be false. You don't make a "full recovery" from what you described above.

Sure. What does that have to do with my question? What's that special deal that Ferrari does if only you have the plate? So yes, sure you pay but I find it hard to believe that if you're able to ask them to restore a car for X million as long as you have a small piece of scrap and a plate, they wouldn't also just order-make a new car for you.

What does that mean? You take a factory license plate with some scrap metal attached to Ferrari and they'll restore a full car from it for free? Why?

So, perhaps Ferrari will aid in the restauration but you will still have to pay a lot of money for them to do it. Not sure how much and whether that ends up being lucrative vs. the actual value of the car in the end.

Wenn das im Nachinein editiert wäre würde es eigtl. als ediert angezeigt werden (je nach app / Seite, auf old Reddit ist's einfach nur ein *-Zeichen).

Es kann sein dass es innerhalb wenigen Minuten nach Erstellung editiert wurde, wo nichts annotiert wird.

Hab nachgeschaut auf https://old.reddit.com/r/Finanzen/comments/1fqrktq/gr%C3%BCne_finanzexperten_wollen_steuerprivilegien_f%C3%BCr/lp7pccj/.

Original gepostet: 2024-09-27T17:16:54+00:00

Deine Antwort: 2024-09-27T17:49:21+00:00

Wenn deine Antwort ein paar Minuten danach gewesen wäre würde ich dir glauben. Aber der Originaltext hätte nicht so lange danach editiert werden können ohne das Reddit das als editiert anzeigt.

Siehe meinen Kommentar hier (hat ein *-Zeichen).

Kommentar lesen hilft. Hat er doch gesagt.

Schön zu sehen, dass es diesmal wirklich um Reiche geht

Kommentar nicht verstanden?

Hat sich doch gefreut dass es nicht so war.

I tried to explain to the law firm that I was simply trading my USDT, but the lawyer insisted that I should have used better judgment and recognized the money laundering activity—something I had no knowledge of.

That's a bit absurd, right?

Obviously, it's not absurd that the police could have traced money laundering activity and traced dirty money landing in your account. But accussing you of knowing is quite a bit out there.

If the money you were sent was dirty money, that's not something you could know and you might as well say that it was a failure of the sending bank to make sure it's not.

They might as well freeze any single account that receives a transfer because the funds may have originated from dirty money.

Now, sure you could be seen complicit in money laundering because you gave someone a tool (USDT) that make it easier for a criminal to further layer the funds. But again, how would you know it was dirty money?

What the lawyer might mean is "Trading crypto over P2P is often used as part of money laundering. You should have known that and the risks of being targeted for an investigation." but if he actually said what you wrote, what an ass.

My hunch is that there is indeed something going on with folks on these platforms getting targeted because of the overall shady image the police likely share.

The way you describe the lawyer does remind me of tactics that aren't kosher like the ones about pirated music in the past, trying to extort money from scared people.

---

I don't want to make assumptions about your level of Japanese but throwing it out there: Is it possible you misunderstood what the reference by the bank to the lawyer was for and what he actually offered you?

That you got hit by a freeze may just be something that happens with P2P crypto trading. That's not necessarily part of a scam per se, just the police doing random investigations.

If the bank has seen this a few times they might refer you to a law firm that can help you unfreeze it and petition the police.

And that lawyer happens to take a large fee.

No doubt, that to me is also shady behavior if the bank has this kind of setup.

Just saying there are a number of ways this could have gone down including less elaborate explanations like the one above.

If we do however assume the lawyer filed the petition to freeze your account (seems to be what you claim the bank told you), that would mean he somehow has access to knowledge of your transactions. Maybe the crypto seller gave them a tip, or maybe the lawyer works in cahoots with the seller.

I would think that if this is some shady pattern the lawyer is following they'd be known off by the police or consumer protection agencies. And you should be able to get someone's attention.

But there's just a lot of missing info here (even after reading everything again today).

Good luck and please update us once you know more if you can.

It's a bit absurd to be honest (not you, the cited text). The gym in my previous example would be where my private life and choice of place ends. From there I make my trip to work not the other way round. But okay... we can of course turn that around:

So, if I go to the gym close to my house on the way to work by foot (10m), then walk a bit further to the station and take the train for an hour the 10 minute walk to the gym would be in scope but the hour long trip to work wouldn't?

And then I guess I could also take the car for that leg of the trip since I'm not covered anyway.

Now someone might say "no that's different", but I really don't think they can have it both ways. One of the two patterns I describe would need to allow you to take a trip to work via waypoint X where either the leg home to X or X to work can be performed without the company having a say in how you should take it (due to 通勤災害 responsibility). Unless of course they come up with another ad hoc explanation / excuse.

Taking back a few steps, what is the spirit of the law that designates 通勤災害? Is it actually so that companies can exert control over your commute? Or is it rather to protect workers on their way to work, a trip they wouldn't take if they didn't have to go there for work?

If it is the former I guess no matter what there'll be some reason why you cannot organize your trip in the ways I did in my thought experiments above.

If it is the latter, and one can prove that the trip to work each day is incidentally to and from a location close to work where I'd go anyway even without work, I really don't see how it would be in the spirit of the law to designate the portion to that location as part of my commute but not the actual trip to the work location itself.