Is this true? I have no idea about US tax system, but feels crazy to increase taxes for someone this poor already?
Can someone explain to me how does it work?
Taxes are decreasing for everyone as they cut spending.
They're bullshitting the numbers by creating an "expected increase in costs due to tariffs" and claiming that's a tax cost and spreading it evenly across all entities as if John Q Public is importing tons of shitty chinese steel
Even though
@ChefKiss answered this, the image seems like little more than something presented without context to get people worked up into a needless frenzy over taxes.
Reality is that some people might see their taxes increase if the tax changes from Trump's first term aren't extended and the tax code reverts back to what it was before. But this graphic doesn't even address that possibility and seems more intent on spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to get people to think Trump intends to raise taxes on the everyday person. As for the tariffs, the average person that doesn't buy stuff impacted by them will likely see little to no impact.
I know, for a fact, that the probationary employees with the best metrics are or even have been offered the right to come back when it all blows over. So long as they were part of a productive branch
This is similar to what happens in the private sector with new/probationary employees where those that are doing their job will ultimately be retained as much as possible when cuts and freezes are in place.
A friend of mine contacted me in hysterics about this. I told him it's easy to comply with, and noncompliance makes him easy to fire under federal employment rules. After some back and forth, with me trying to be patient and neutral (but pretty clear that the President is the head of the Executive Branch, and he can give orders you think are retarded), he blocked me on every platform, including texts.
The fact that so many government workers can't figure out how to express in writing what they did/accomplished over the past week while on the job is probably a good reason why they deserve to be facing the chopping block. It's no wonder those working as customer service agents can't communicate clearly when the public calls with legitimate requests for help.
if you search economic blackout february on reddit now, they are trying to do some 'no buy' movement on 28 Feb
(...)
how is one day of not buying stuff (if it even happens) make any difference from the other days of the year.
It's even more stupid when you stop to think about it. Either they stock up in advance and make additional purchases prior to the 28th that they would normally make at that time, or they buy whatever they didn't on the 28th sometime in March. Their net purchasing hasn't changed.
I've seen this being shared on other platforms by people who think this is some sort of novel idea that will have such a huge impact. They don't realize others have unsuccessfuly tried the same thing in the past and it failed for the reasons shared by
@ExFoedere and
@Irene and 22 others - People are going to buy what they want or need before the 28th or after it, so the net impact will be zero.
TL; DR - This is little more than the latest attempt at slacktivism.
Do schools even bother telling kids not to have sex anymore or am I in the wrong here?
That said, the unit put a lot of focus on the effectiveness of different types of Birth Control/Protection, which was basically saying "If you choose not to abstain, here's the next best options so that you don't get any unwanted complications" without actually saying it.
Even though my school's PE class was supposed to include AIDS and basic sex ed instruction as part of our health unit, the teacher spent very little time covering either subject. The short verion of what we got told was, "Abstinence is best, but protect yourself if you're going to have sex so you don't get pregnant or some sort of disease like AIDS."
I can understand why people think this might be condoning sexual activity. However, not every teen - especially today's generation - has good impulse control and they deserve to know that there are options for minimizing the risks associated with sex should they end up on that path.
I don't know what the schools are like in your area with your friend, but most middle schoolers usually are not having sex.
I think the attitudes about sex may very slightly by area. Here, it seems middle schoolers either find sex too gross or scary to try at their age - leaving them disinterested - or they want to start doing it because they have the misguided idea that having sex before they start high school has some sort of prestiege or status attached to it.
The main issue that is oversexualizing teenagers at early ages is unmonitored internet access of them and their peers.
This doesn't help, especially with the internet making it easier for groomers to lure vulnerable kids down a degenrate path that will leave them messed up when they're older.
Is there any fucking middle ground for anything anymore?
Finding that middle ground and balance is tricky. Unfortunately, nobody in charge wants to do that and prefers the path of least resistance.
It should be up to you to decide when you want to teach your kid about sex.
I agree in theory. Unfortunately, too many parents got inadequate sex ed lessons to be good teachers about the subject themselves. Also, it's difficult to keep up with all the slang, teenspeak, and emojis teens use to discuss sex and sexual topics on the down low without naive adults realizing what's being said so the adults can discuss those aspects as well.
If it's not too late to play the
What would you do with your $5000 rebate game? If it was a tax credit, I'd carry it forward to reduce my estimates moving forward. Otherwise, I'dput some towards my retirement and save some for upcoming expenses.
