Talk:Vesting

Globalise please[edit]

This article appears to relate only to law of the United States, although the legal term is used in other jurisdictions, and is written as if that were the only legal system in existence ... Richard Pinch (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Specific comments about tax advantages (see especially "Ownership in Startup Companies") are particularly US-centric; and does not seem essential to the meaning of the term "vesting" 130.15.93.239 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean?: "The vested rights doctrine is the rule of zoning law by which an owner/developer is entitled to proceed in accordance with the prior zoning provision where there has been a substantial change of position, expenditures or incurrence of obligations made in good faith by an innocent party under a building permit or in reliance upon the probability of its issuance." It needs to be broken into point form to be easier to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.2.190 (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

references to "401K" is way too specific to one particular country, ie United States. such references should be removed from a generic entry like this. Gary Dean | Okusi Associates | Jakarta, Indonesia (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Generalize Tag[edit]

That tag seems to have been on the page since August 2008 with no discussion. I see nothing overly specific about this page and I'd like to propose the tag be removed. 128.208.150.188 (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. DickClarkMises (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Employment changed to deployment[edit]

Changed a small emote regarding the term employment vs deployment. Vesting, is an act that pertains to deployment, not employment. Here you have to pertain to an emote that pertains to the ploys in a dress (spanish/latin:vestido [vest & do]), particularly important in relation to marriage law & legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.18.169 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying. From an American perspective — and I believe European, Canadian, and Australian as well, vesting of rights with respect to a company are a function of continuing employment by the company. The change you made causes the sentence in question to be nonsensical as it applies to vesting of company ownership. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In an election, you select an individual, after which that individual is vested with a part aspect of each and every within that region, to be deployed if/when warranted, for mutual benefit. That doesn´t imply employment. For jargon, governmental services, you deploy the individuals/assets/budget. The crown is vested and even if that implies a form of employment, that what has been vested is not due/for employment, but due/for deployment.

The emperors clothing /new clothing, are due that what is vested, to be deployed (think plait/ploy dress, woman wear such). When the emperor´s clothing are seethrough (not existant), it implies that nihil was vested (none withstanding confiscation). In legal terminology, pleat/ploy, is a form of debate/script, where each aspect overlaps with the next (for males, think plate/scale mail). In court, you pleat, with a tee, and you do not plead, that what is spelled with a dee.

Lot´s of fun with language, in case that interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.18.169 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]