Unofficial Off Topic Thread

[sk47]

Hello; I was looking out on my front yard this morning and saw a full grown deer running across my front yard. Did not think too much about it until later. I saw a section of my chain link fence was damaged. One of the posts was bent at near a 90 degree angle and the fence was distorted. Did not make sense at first as to what happened.
When I inspected the fence there was deer body hair on the ground and a clear hoof print. I am amazed at the damage. A thing is the deer was not trapped as there is a fifteen foot opening nearby. Guess the deer was panicked by something.
I straightened the fence up some but will likely need to do more when it stops raining.

Sponsored

 

[HoosierDaddy]

In 2023, Maryland lawmakers eliminated time limits on filing lawsuits against organizations for child sexual abuse. The change followed an investigation that detailed decades of sexual abuse against children in the Archdiocese of Baltimore. But now, the state finds itself facing around 6,000 claims under that law, with more expected. The claims are from people who say they were sexually abused in the state's youth detention centers. State leaders say they did not anticipate they'd be facing complaints under the law, and they are looking at changes to protect the government financially.

Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

And it raises the question of whether the govt allowing sexual abuse of minors is a violation of church vs. state?

 

[sk47]

raises the question of whether the govt allowing sexual abuse of minors is a violation of church vs. state?

Hello; Guess i do not follow how child sexual abuse falls under the separation of church and state. Abuse ought to be abuse no matter who is doing it.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

In England, anti-abortion activist Livia Tossici-Bolt has been found guilty of breaking a law banning protests near an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. She stood outside the clinic on two days in March 2023, holding a sign that said, "Here to talk, if you want," which violated the "safe zone" set up to protect women accessing the clinic from harassment. The court gave her a two-year conditional discharge and ordered her to pay £20,000 ($25,540) in legal costs. Tossici-Bolt argued she wasn't protesting or bothering anyone, but the judge ruled her presence could still upset clinic visitors.

https://reason.com/2025/04/10/brickbat-unfree-speech-zone/

I must remember to never visit England. If the mere possibility of upsetting people is a crime, I'd get the death penalty for sure.

 

[K4fxd]

https://reason.com/2025/04/10/brickbat-unfree-speech-zone/

I must remember to never visit England. If the mere possibility of upsetting people is a crime, I'd get the death penalty for sure.

The older I get the more I find pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Back a few years, around 2018, a tax cut bill became law. I saw a significant decrease in my tax liability for the tax year the law affected. That sort of personal reduced tax burden has continued each year. I was in the $50K and below bracket so a few thousand off taxes made a difference.
Over the last few years, I have been skeptical of the negative claims about that tax cut bill. I figured high income earners must also have saved on their tax burden and that their savings numbers ought to be larger than my own as they earn more money. I do not know that the "rich" got a better deal percentage wise than i did. I wound up with more in my pocket.

That tax cut is up to be renewed in this current congress. If not renewed the tax rates will revert to rates prior the bills enactment. I will feel it if such happens. Anyway, i read an article today which included information about the benefits for those of us in lower brackets.

New study about IRS reveals just how much Trump tax cuts saved you

 

[Balr14]

How about something that isn't from Fox News and is more objective:
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/03/both-sides-spin-who-would-benefit-from-extending-trump-tax-cuts/

 

[IPOGT]

The older I get the more I find pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake.

And a hell of a lot more fun

 

[sk47]

How about something that isn't from Fox News and is more objective:

Hello; From the link in my post.

"For example, the average filer in the IRS’s "$40,000 under $50,000" bracket paid 18.8% less in taxes in 2022 than they did in 2017. "

"Similarly, the tax bill for filers in the "$50,000 under $75,000" bracket was 16.5% less in 2022 than it was in 2017. "

"For comparison, those earning between $5 million and $10 million paid 2.3% less over the same period. So much for the "billionaire tax cut" narrative. (You can find data for other income brackets in our published paper, which is available here.) "

Hello; Gues i could go back and check my 2017 vs 2018 tax return papers to see just how much I saved individually. I likely will if anyone else is interested.
Thing is I have tried to have conversations with you before. It was a pointless exercise thene and likely will continue to be again.

My point in that post was and still is the tax cut made a difference for me personally. The wealthy have generally gotten a better deal over time. I recall clearly back a few decades when a business owner in Harlan KY was showing off his new MB sedan. He also bragged as to how it was written off as a business expense. I always figure the nice cars we see in movies are also a way to get the owner some sort of tax break.
But I get your point although it strikes me as odd. Seems you are saying I should not want to have my much smaller tax break because some rich folks will get a bigger one also. Yeah really?

 

[Balr14]

I am simply saying you always manage to find the most rightward slant to everything you post. It's very obvious. And tiring. You may have noticed you are basically talking to yourself most of the time.

 

[sk47]

I am simply saying you always manage to find the most rightward slant to everything you post. It's very obvious. And tiring. You may have noticed you are basically talking to yourself most of the time.

Hello; To me something of more interest is which point is more correct. I did pretty well with my stances about covid19 for example. You have taken exception to things i post before and often criticize the sources I use.
For what it may be worth I like to consider myself an independent. Neither far right nor far left. I have lately taken more conservative stances as they make sense much more often.

Simple enough way to settle this most current spat. back in 2018 or so when the tax cut law went into effect for the first year, did you see a tax savings?

 

[Balr14]

Hello; To me something of more interest is which point is more correct. I did pretty well with my stances about covid19 for example. You have taken exception to things i post before and often criticize the sources I use.
For what it may be worth I like to consider myself an independent. Neither far right nor far left. I have lately taken more conservative stances as they make sense much more often.

Simple enough way to settle this most current spat. back in 2018 or so when the tax cut law went into effect for the first year, did you see a tax savings?

I wasn't disputing your findings, merely expanding the context. You aren't going to get any discussion by quoting Fox. Your like-minded friends will give you an "Atta boy" and everyone else will run the other way!

As for 2018, I save about $1500 (I think), but I would have much rather not add trillions to the national debt.

 

[Skye]

That tax cut is up to be renewed in this current congress.

I disagree with the tax cut article for three reasons:

- The story cites relative, percentage savings. For example, someone making $50,000 saved 18.8%. Someone making $10M saved 2.3%. I didn't check these amounts, but let's run with these

Budget and payment systems don't work by percentages, they work using absolute amounts. The money returned to taxpayers in the examples above was $9,400 and $230,000 respectively; those in the higher brackets received more dollars from the Treasury, a greater amount of the overall revenue distribution.

- Even the example I use above could be considered a rounding error. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) made significant changes to how corporations are taxed; this is where the real money is. The ultra-wealthy are paid little in actual wages. The overwhelming majority of their income is paid in stock or percentage of corporate ownership, which continues to compound virtually tax free

https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tax-avoidance-top

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/ultra-wealthys-8-5-trillion-untaxed-income/

https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-i...hy-does-it-matter-for-our-economy-and-budget/

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105384

- Like the tax cuts that preceded them, these didn't pay for themselves. We indebted future generations so we could get a handout today

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.e...ermanently-extending-tcja-expiring-provisions

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/trump-tax-cuts-benefits-outweighed-lost-revenue

Congress is attempting to move forward in the 2025 reconciliation process using "current policy accounting", applying relative spending amounts in their favor.

Under existing policy, in absolute amounts, the TCJA is increasing the deficit every year. But using relative, current policy accounting, since I'm not changing anything, extension of the TCJA increases the budget deficit by $0.

Using Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and other organization scoring, extending the tax cuts while spending more on border security, defense and immigration control will result in trillions of dollars of additional deficit spending over the next 10 years; this is why Congress is eyeing cutting Medicaid payments. While current policy accounting will take them to the final few yards, only additional cuts will take the package over the goal line. In absolute amounts, the actual numbers are $5.5T-$7T in additional deficit spending over the next 10 years.

Tax cuts, incentives and exemptions are useful tools, if used sparingly and at the appropriate moment. US fiscal policy over the last several decades has suffered from two flaws: 1) the tax cuts and other incentives are used all the time, resulting in consistent deficit spending, 2) we sometimes implement them even when the economy is doing well, adding more fuel to an already robust economy.

Politicians are good at telling people what they want to hear. Pundits complain about spending being out of control, while promoting tax cuts at the same time. What we actually need is an overhaul of our revenue system, entitlement reform and spending reform. We need a strategic, 30-year (I see it as akin to paying down a mortgage) vision to get back on track. We all need to take one in the shorts. Government austerity.

Not everyone will agree with the above. I get it. As the process moves forward, the CBO and others will present their analysis. The executive summaries in those documents are often a good at laying out who the winners and losers will be.

 

[CrazyHippie]

I wasn't disputing your findings, merely expanding the context. You aren't going to get any discussion by quoting Fox. Your like-minded friends will give you an "Atta boy" and everyone else will run the other way!

As for 2018, I save about $1500 (I think), but I would have much rather not add trillions to the national debt.

I agree with you on not increasing the national debt. Did you send your tax savings back to help out?

I didn't either. So it seems that we are also in agreement that the reforms that are needed are on the government spending side, not on the tax revenue side of the equation. Accordingly, the imminent tax hike that's scheduled should be stopped to allow the tariffs and govt spending reduction efforts to ripen and show results.

Our government is like an alcoholic and giving them more alcohol is not the answer.

 

[sk47]

The story cites relative, percentage savings. For example, someone making $50,000 saved 18.8%. Someone making $10M saved 2.3%. I didn't check these amounts, but let's run with these

Budget and payment systems don't work by percentages, they work using absolute amounts. The money returned to taxpayers in the examples above was $9,400 and $230,000 respectively; those in the higher brackets received more dollars from the Treasury, a greater amount of the overall revenue distribution.

Hello; An interesting way to look at a tax break. I do not buy it as the way to do so. The hype during the last few years was that tax reduction bill was a boon for the very rich. Tax breaks for millionaires is one way i have heard it criticized. Using you own post bit we can see such is not the case.
For a person making 50 grand having an extra $9,400 in the pocket is a real boon. For someone making $10,000,000 an extra $230 grand is peanuts by comparison. However, I get what you are driving at. $230,000 is almost five years income for someone making 50 grand a year. As a talking point saying one gets $230 grand while the other only gets $9 grand makes a good spin. I have to disagree and say going by percentages is a sound way to compare the tax break.

Let's try it in reverse. Say the person making 50 grand gets a 2.3% tax break and the person making 10 million gets an 18.8% tax break. The 50 grand gets only $1,150 savings while the ten million gets $18,800,000 savings. Puts things into focus for me. Under this reversed example the 50 grand persons financial life is only modestly improved while the 10 million person makes out big time.

But to rarely partially agree with blair and wholly agree with CrazyHippie, the national debt needs to be addressed. Also, the government does not have a revenue problem, more a spending problem.

Sponsored