#because I used to get a higher return from the federal government

[mandelene]

Filed my federal tax return online and I apparently don’t qualify for the student loan interest deduction anymore because I was over the income limit for it this year (which I didn’t even know was a thing lmao). So, in the end, I owed the IRS $4.

Four whole dollars. I just think that’s hilarious. And if I don’t pay the $4, you know they’re gonna come after me. 😂

[so-much-for-subtlety]

The thing that gets me so worked up about universal healthcare is how people say that it will be so expensive for the tax payer.

This is long rant warning so I added a break lol.

The TLDR is that even in a low tax state like Florida, someone making 50k a year will have an effective rate of of 32% (for taxes, healthcare, costs for an undergraduate degree).

Someone making 50k a year in a 'high tax' country like New Zealand has an effective rate of 21% (for taxes, healthcare, costs for an undergraduate degree).

For an American and a Kiwi with the same salary of $50k, if they have the same disposable income, the Kiwi will be able to save an extra $75,000 over 10 years that they can use for a downpayment on a home to further build wealth.

Low tax states just have the costs shuffled to other places, you end up paying a LOT more for the same services.

Here's a comparison of someone who makes $50,000 a year in New Zealand and Florida (I chose Florida as an extreme example because they have 0% state tax rate) and each person makes $15,000 worth of purchases that are taxable.

New Zealand

$7,658 in combined income taxes and levies

$2,250 in taxes on $15k of purchases (15% sales tax)

Total of $9,908 - an effective total rate of 19.8% paid to taxes and purchases and healthcare

Florida

$7,945 in combined taxes (federal taxes, social security, medicaid etc)

$1,050 in taxes on $15k of purchases (7% sales tax)

$1,700 average annual health insurance premium for Florida

$2,060 average annual health insurance deductible for Florida

Total of $12,755 - an effective total rate of 25.5% paid to taxes and purchases and healthcare

Even in a low tax state, you're already have less take-home income than someone with the same salary in New Zealand.

But

... in New Zealand with your taxes you're also getting public education. It's not completely free, but costs are fixed, and you get one year of your undergraduate free, so for example a Bachelor of Arts would cost a total of $13,548 (USD $8,347)

If you can't pay that upfront, you can get a 0% loan from the government, which you don't need to start paying off until you earn at least $23k per year. For someone making $50k that would be an extra 6.5% deducted from your income ($270/month) until the loan is paid off (which would be 2 years and 8 months).

In Florida the average student loan debt is 25k and if you're making the same payments as someone in NZ ($270/month) then you'll be paying that off for 11 years. [Note: I believe that some private loan interest rates go as high as 15%].

Bachelor of Arts in NZ $13,548, paid off over ~2.7 years.

Bachelor of Arts in Florida $35,539, paid off over ~11 years.

So lets look at effective payments over 11 years (for simplicity salary stays at 50k).

New Zealand works out to be 21% effective rate over 11 years (including taxes, healthcare, and undergraduate degree).

Florida works out to be 32% effective rate over 11 years (including taxes, healthcare, and an undergraduate degree) - you're paying 52% more!

That means someone with the same income will effectively be able to save an additional $5,000 per year over 11 years, if they invest that extra amount and get a 5% return, the New Zealander will have savings of about $75k which they can use for downpayment for a home etc.

In conclusion, even though it may seem like you're getting a good deal in a low tax state like Florida, you end up paying soooo much more in healthcare and education costs compared to a country where taxes are a little higher, but you get public healthcare and education.

Why is the U.S. so expensive? Well once place to look is defense, intelligence, and police. In the United States this costs on average $3,700 per person. New Zealand spends $1,600 per person (USD ~1,000).

[phoenixyfriend]

Ko-Fi prompt from Isabelo:

Hi! I'm new to the workforce and now that I have some money I'm worried it's losing its value to inflation just sitting in my bank. I wanted to ask if you have ideas on how to counteract inflation, maybe through investing?

I've been putting this off for a long time because...

I am not a finance person. I am not an investments person. I actually kinda turned and ran from that whole sector of the business world, at first because I didn't understand it, and then once I did understand it, because I disagreed with much of it on a fundamental level.

But... I can describe some factors and options, and hope to get you started.

I AM NOT LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO GIVE FINANCIAL ADVICE. THIS IS NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE.

What is inflation, and what impacts it?

Inflation is the rate at which money loses value over time. It's the reason something that cost 50 cents in the 1840s costs $50 now.

A lot of things do impact inflation, like housing costs and wage increases and supply chains, but the big one that is relevant here is federal interest rates. The short version: if you borrow money from the government, you have to pay it back. The higher the interest rates on those loans, the lower inflation is. This is for... a lot of reasons that are complicated. The reason I bring it up is less so:

The government offers investments:

So yeah, the feds can impact inflation, but they also offer investment opportunities. There are three common types available to the average person: Bonds, Bills, and Notes. I'll link to an article on Investopedia again, but the summary is as follows: You buy a bill, bond, or note from the government. You have loaned them money, as if you are the bank. Then, they give it back, with interest.

Treasury Bills: shortest timeframe (four weeks to a year), and lowest return on investment. You buy it at a discount (let's say $475), and then the government returns the "full value" that the bond is, nominally (let's say $500). You don't earn twice-yearly interest, but you did earn $25 on the basis of Loaning The Government Some Cash.

Treasury Notes: 2-10 year timeframe. Very popular, very stable. Banks watch it to see how they should plan the interest rates for mortgages and other large loans. Also pretty high liquidity, which means you can sell it to someone else if you suddenly need the cash before your ten-year waiting period is up. You get interest payments twice a year.

Treasury Bonds: 20-30 years. This is like... the inverse of a house mortgage. It takes forever, but it does have the highest yield. You get interest payments twice a year.

Why invest money into the US Treasury department, whether through the above or a different government paper? (Savings bonds aren't on sold the set schedule that treasury bonds are, but they only come in 30-year terms.)

It is very, very low risk. It is pretty much the lowest risk investment a person can make, at least in the US. (I'm afraid I don't know if you're American, but if you're not, your country probably has something similar.)

Interest rates do change, often in reaction or in relation to inflation. If your primary concern is inflation, not getting a high return on investment, I would look into government papers as a way to ensure your money is not losing value on you.

This is the website that tells you the government's own data for current yield and sales, etc. You can find a schedule for upcoming auctions, as well.

High-yield bank accounts:

Savings accounts can come with a pretty unremarkable but steady return on investment; you just need to make sure you find one that suits you. Some of the higher-yield accounts require a minimum balance or a yearly fee... but if you've got a good enough chunk of cash to start with, that might be worth it for you.

They are almost as reliable as government bonds, and are insured by the government up to $250,000. Right now, they come with a lower ROI than most bonds/bills/notes (federal interest rates are pretty high at the moment, to combat inflation). Unlike government papers, though, you can deposit and withdraw money from a savings account pretty much any time.

Certificates of Deposit:

Okay, imagine you are loaning money to your bank, with the fixed term of "I will get this money back with interest, but only in ten years when the contract is up" like the Treasury Notes.

That's what this is.

Also, Investopedia updates near-daily with the highest rates of the moment, which is pretty cool.

Property:

Honestly, if you're coming to me for advice, you almost definitely cannot afford to treat real estate as an investment thing. You would be going to an actual financial professional. As such... IDK, people definitely do it, and it's a standby for a reason, but it's not... you don't want to be a victim of the housing bubble, you know? And me giving advice would probably make you one. So. Talk to a professional if this is the route you want to take.

Retirement accounts:

Pension accounts are a kind of savings account. You've heard of a 401(k)? It's that. Basically, you put your money in a savings account with a company that specializes in pensions, and they invest it in a variety of different fields and markets (you can generally choose some of this) in order to ensure that the money grows enough that you can hopefully retire on it in fifty years. The ROI is usually higher than inflation.

These kinds of accounts have a higher potential for returns than bonds or treasury notes, buuuuut they're less reliable and more sensitive to market fluctuations.

However, your employer may pay into it, matching your contribution. If they agree to match up to 4%, and you pay 4% of your paycheck into an pension fund, then they will pay that same amount and you are functionally getting 8% of your paycheck put into retirement while only paying for half of it yourself.

Mutual Funds:

I've definitely linked this article before, but the short version is:

An investment company buys 100 shares of stock: 10 shares each in 10 different "general" companies. You, who cannot afford a share of each of these companies, buy 1 singular share of that investment company. That share is then treated as one-tenth of a share of each of those 10 "general" companies. You are one of 100 people who has each bought "one stock" that is actually one tenth of ten different stocks.

Most retirement funds are actually a form of mutual fund that includes employer contributions.

Pros: It's more stable than investing directly in the stock market, because you can diversify without having to pay the full price of a share in each company you invest in.

Cons: The investment company does get a cut, and they are... often not great influences on the economy at large. Mutual funds are technically supposed to be more regulated than hedge funds (which are, you know, often venture capital/private equity), but a lot of mutual funds like insurance companies and pension funds will invest a portion of their own money into hedge funds, which is... technically their job. But, you know, capitalism.

Directly investing in the stock market:

Follow people who actually know what they're doing and are not Evil Finance Bros who only care about the bottom line. I haven't watched more than a few videos yet, but The Financial Diet has had good energy on this topic from what I've seen so far, and I enjoy the very general trends I hear about on Morning Brew.

That said, we are not talking about speculative capital gains. We are talking about making sure inflation doesn't screw with you.

DIVIDENDS are profit that the company shares to investors every quarter. Did the company make $2 billion after paying its mortgages, employees, energy bill, etc? Great, that $2 billion will be shared out among the hundreds of thousands of stocks. You'll probably only get a few cents back per stock (e.g. Walmart has been trading at $50-$60 for the past six months, and their dividends have been 57 cents and then 20.75 cents), but it adds up... sort of. The Walmart example is listed as having dividends that are lower than inflation, so you're actually losing money. It's part of why people rely on capital gains so much, rather than dividends, when it comes to building wealth.

Blue Chip Stocks: These are old, stable companies that you can expect to return on your investment at a steady rate. You probably aren't going to see your share jump from $5 to $50 in a year, but you also probably won't see it do the reverse. You will most likely get reliable, if not amazing, dividends.

Preferred Stocks: These are stock shares that have more reliable dividends, but no voting rights. Since you are, presumably, not a billionaire that can theoretically gain a controlling share, I can't imagine the voting rights in a given company are all that important anyway.

Anyway, hope this much-delayed Intro To Investing was, if not worth the wait, at least, a bit longer than you expected.

Hey! You got interest on the word count! It's topical! Ish.

[lunarpunctuation]

So... This is actually a really interesting problem, because industrial hemp touts that it's more drought resistant/needs less water than cotton, which is pretty low water requirement and the crop most likely to grown without irrigation where I grew up (Lubbock area) but still often irrigated. And crop irrigation is where something like 90-95% of all water drawn off the Ogallala aquifer goes- if we could somehow drastically restrict or reduce irrigation especially in the western half of Texas, it would potentially allow the aquifers to start charging again. (The ideal solution would be letting them go back to a native plant prairie but the financials of buffalo or cattle ranching don't work out for any farmer that doesn't own oil wells means without major government programs, this won't happen)

However, everything I'm seeing shows that marijuana has higher water requirements, which with them being different strains could be very possible. I haven't seen any non-irrigated and really any non-covered grow facilities in Oklahoma. With it being a high value consumable crop that needs strict nutrient tolerances to get the ratios of cannabinoids desired, that's likely necessary

BUT on the other hand the much higher returns for mj may even out to where much less water could be used to grow the same amount of dollar value of crop, but then there's still the federal legality, knowledge and infrastructure requirements for mj vs current crops, some potential risk of the price falling as more and more states legalize, cultural values keeping farmers from being willing to transition, etc etc means a lot of farmers aren't likely to transition anyway.

On the other other hand, eastern Texas is not nearly as aquifer dependant- Dallas gets twice as much rainfall on average than Lubbock- and living in OKC (not quite as much rain), it is insane how much rain we get here. Not necessarily consistently for crops, but enough that almost a third of the entire state's population gets their municipal water from 7 lakes - about 3 million people. There's still some irrigation, I'd need to look into the east Texas groundwater situation, but it's very possible that the average grow facility could survive entirely on rainwater catchment. And could potentially price out the western half of the state from producing plus there's going to be way more demand and potential investors around DFW, Houston, and Austin anyway, though I'm sure they'd pop up just about everywhere.

This is a really long winded way to say it probably, without any real in depth research (there might be studies? I'm not sure, wasn't something that seemed that likely when I was deeper in that realm in college), wouldn't actually have much net change. Not without either very significant out of town investors or government interference to specifically preserve the water table.

I do hold scorn for people in weed states I do. I really do. The way your stupid 21 year old ass can go to the weed store and buy weed. The way your stupid 21 year old ass can buy weed online not a care in the world. And you have so much to choose from. You have so much fucking gorrila cumshot big fat load of cum horse cock mega 1 billion tch % to choose from and they all got different names and when our good texan plugs come home from colorado they bring that poison with them. They bring that poison home to us. And the people of texas, we're smoking that poison. Were smoking that filthy filthy colorado 10000 thc shit, and were dying. Were dying out here. The soil down here is lerfect for weed. If we could have weed we could create, beautiful poison. Way more toxic than colorodo. Way more toxic than california. We can make weed so insane, bitched from colorado will come down here, to smoke OUR poison. And WE could name it shit like Ram Ranch. We could name it shit like Horse Erection. We could name it shit like, I dont know, Forget The Alamo. YOU, worthless idiots up north, can smoke our latino magic. You dont got tejanos. You dont got our technology. You don't got what it takes. You dont know what its like. Theyre not legalizing weed down here cause they hate us. You know they do. You know for a fact they do. So yeah. Just think before you spark up with that shit you got down the street trouble free. Do so in my name. In our name. Keep the less fortunate in mind. I HOPE THE CIELING FAN FALLS ON YOU

[miltonreese]

Milton Reese: Investor Confidence and Its Impact on Treasury Markets

Milton Reese: Investor Confidence and Its Impact on Treasury Markets

I categorize the factors that influence Treasury yields into the following main categories:

Investor confidence: When confidence is low, bond prices go up, and yields go down. The logic here is simple: demand for the safety of Treasuries increases, so lower yields indicate a cautious market.

Monetary policy: Although we see the 10-year Treasury yield as a benchmark for most rates, it is also affected by short-term rate changes. For instance, when the Fed raises rates, the federal funds rate increases, directly impacting Treasury yields.

Inflation expectations: U.S. Treasury yields can be split into real interest rates and inflation expectations. The market’s outlook on inflation significantly affects yield fluctuations. When economic data releases exceed expectations, they can significantly impact Treasury yields. For example, during periods of inflation control, if CPI, PCE, or employment report data surpasses market expectations, it indicates that the economic health supports further Fed rate hikes.

Unexpected events: Various geopolitical conflicts and wars can cause short-term yield fluctuations. On one hand, wars might drive investors to the safety of the bond market, causing yields to drop. On the other hand, conflicts, especially those involving oil, can raise inflation expectations and lift Treasury yields.

Here are some key indicators that might help you gauge the overall condition of the bond market:

10-year treasury yield: The 10-year Treasury is the most widely tracked government debt instrument in finance. Its yield is often used as a benchmark for other rates, like mortgage and corporate debt rates. So, this yield is seen as a gauge of investor confidence in the market.

U.S. dollar index: The movement of the dollar, as the world’s reserve currency, greatly impacts the U.S. bond market. When the dollar strengthens, it can attract foreign investors to the U.S. bond market, increasing bond demand, lowering prices, and pushing yields higher.

CBOE volatility index (VIX): This reflects market expectations for volatility in the S&P 500 over the next 30 days. During periods of increased market risk aversion and heightened investor concerns, the VIX rises, driving up demand and prices for safe-haven assets like U.S. Treasuries.

The longer the maturity of a Treasury, the higher the yield, because the longer investors’ money is tied up, the more return they require.

Short-term debt usually has lower yields than long-term debt. If we plot the yields of bonds from 1 month to 30 years on the horizontal axis, we get an upward-sloping yield curve — this is known as a normal yield curve.

However, sometimes the yield curve can invert, with shorter-term bonds having higher yields, resulting in a downward-sloping curve — this is an inverted yield curve.

Historically, the spread between the 10-year and 2-year Treasury yields has been seen as a precursor to economic recessions. A normal yield curve typically has a positive spread, indicating stable future economic conditions; an inverted curve, with a negative spread, signals potential economic deterioration. The 10-year to 2-year negative spread usually occurs 6 to 24 months before a recession and has accurately predicted every recession from 1955 to 2018, making it a reliable indicator.

An inverted yield curve, where short-term rates exceed long-term rates, usually signals an impending economic recession.

[wealthwave1]

Lucas Turner: The Impact of Monetary Policy on Treasury Yields

Lucas Turner: The Impact of Monetary Policy on Treasury Yields

I categorize the factors that influence Treasury yields into the following main categories:

Investor confidence: When confidence is low, bond prices go up, and yields go down. The logic here is simple: demand for the safety of Treasuries increases, so lower yields indicate a cautious market.

Monetary policy: Although we see the 10-year Treasury yield as a benchmark for most rates, it is also affected by short-term rate changes. For instance, when the Fed raises rates, the federal funds rate increases, directly impacting Treasury yields.

Inflation expectations: U.S. Treasury yields can be split into real interest rates and inflation expectations. The market’s outlook on inflation significantly affects yield fluctuations. When economic data releases exceed expectations, they can significantly impact Treasury yields. For example, during periods of inflation control, if CPI, PCE, or employment report data surpasses market expectations, it indicates that the economic health supports further Fed rate hikes.

Unexpected events: Various geopolitical conflicts and wars can cause short-term yield fluctuations. On one hand, wars might drive investors to the safety of the bond market, causing yields to drop. On the other hand, conflicts, especially those involving oil, can raise inflation expectations and lift Treasury yields.

Here are some key indicators that might help you gauge the overall condition of the bond market:

10-year treasury yield: The 10-year Treasury is the most widely tracked government debt instrument in finance. Its yield is often used as a benchmark for other rates, like mortgage and corporate debt rates. So, this yield is seen as a gauge of investor confidence in the market.

U.S. dollar index: The movement of the dollar, as the world’s reserve currency, greatly impacts the U.S. bond market. When the dollar strengthens, it can attract foreign investors to the U.S. bond market, increasing bond demand, lowering prices, and pushing yields higher.

CBOE volatility index (VIX): This reflects market expectations for volatility in the S&P 500 over the next 30 days. During periods of increased market risk aversion and heightened investor concerns, the VIX rises, driving up demand and prices for safe-haven assets like U.S. Treasuries.

The longer the maturity of a Treasury, the higher the yield, because the longer investors’ money is tied up, the more return they require.

Short-term debt usually has lower yields than long-term debt. If we plot the yields of bonds from 1 month to 30 years on the horizontal axis, we get an upward-sloping yield curve — this is known as a normal yield curve.

However, sometimes the yield curve can invert, with shorter-term bonds having higher yields, resulting in a downward-sloping curve — this is an inverted yield curve.

Historically, the spread between the 10-year and 2-year Treasury yields has been seen as a precursor to economic recessions. A normal yield curve typically has a positive spread, indicating stable future economic conditions; an inverted curve, with a negative spread, signals potential economic deterioration. The 10-year to 2-year negative spread usually occurs 6 to 24 months before a recession and has accurately predicted every recession from 1955 to 2018, making it a reliable indicator.

An inverted yield curve, where short-term rates exceed long-term rates, usually signals an impending economic recession.

[wealthwire]

Pedro Hill’s Strategic Approach to U.S. Treasury Investments

Pedro Hill’s Strategic Approach to U.S. Treasury Investments

I categorize the factors that influence Treasury yields into the following main categories:

Investor confidence: When confidence is low, bond prices go up, and yields go down. The logic here is simple: demand for the safety of Treasuries increases, so lower yields indicate a cautious market.

Monetary policy: Although we see the 10-year Treasury yield as a benchmark for most rates, it is also affected by short-term rate changes. For instance, when the Fed raises rates, the federal funds rate increases, directly impacting Treasury yields.

Inflation expectations: U.S. Treasury yields can be split into real interest rates and inflation expectations. The market’s outlook on inflation significantly affects yield fluctuations. When economic data releases exceed expectations, they can significantly impact Treasury yields. For example, during periods of inflation control, if CPI, PCE, or employment report data surpasses market expectations, it indicates that the economic health supports further Fed rate hikes.

Unexpected events: Various geopolitical conflicts and wars can cause short-term yield fluctuations. On one hand, wars might drive investors to the safety of the bond market, causing yields to drop. On the other hand, conflicts, especially those involving oil, can raise inflation expectations and lift Treasury yields.

Here are some key indicators that might help you gauge the overall condition of the bond market:

10-year treasury yield: The 10-year Treasury is the most widely tracked government debt instrument in finance. Its yield is often used as a benchmark for other rates, like mortgage and corporate debt rates. So, this yield is seen as a gauge of investor confidence in the market.

U.S. dollar index: The movement of the dollar, as the world’s reserve currency, greatly impacts the U.S. bond market. When the dollar strengthens, it can attract foreign investors to the U.S. bond market, increasing bond demand, lowering prices, and pushing yields higher.

CBOE volatility index (VIX): This reflects market expectations for volatility in the S&P 500 over the next 30 days. During periods of increased market risk aversion and heightened investor concerns, the VIX rises, driving up demand and prices for safe-haven assets like U.S. Treasuries.

The longer the maturity of a Treasury, the higher the yield, because the longer investors’ money is tied up, the more return they require.

Short-term debt usually has lower yields than long-term debt. If we plot the yields of bonds from 1 month to 30 years on the horizontal axis, we get an upward-sloping yield curve — this is known as a normal yield curve.

However, sometimes the yield curve can invert, with shorter-term bonds having higher yields, resulting in a downward-sloping curve — this is an inverted yield curve.

Historically, the spread between the 10-year and 2-year Treasury yields has been seen as a precursor to economic recessions. A normal yield curve typically has a positive spread, indicating stable future economic conditions; an inverted curve, with a negative spread, signals potential economic deterioration. The 10-year to 2-year negative spread usually occurs 6 to 24 months before a recession and has accurately predicted every recession from 1955 to 2018, making it a reliable indicator.

An inverted yield curve, where short-term rates exceed long-term rates, usually signals an impending economic recession.

[conpolbel]

Make no mistake; the current government of the United States is, without any doubt whatsoever, the most corrupt government in our nation's history. This illegitimate federal regime may or may not have been involved in the assassination attempt of President Trump yesterday, but frankly, whether or not they were is irrelevant. What is relevant is they are certainly CAPABLE of having been involved in trying to eliminate their political opponent.

This current federal government, which exists only because liberal Democrats were successful in pulling off a coup with their blatant election fraud 4 years ago, will stop at NOTHING to keep President Trump out of office. If you look back at the last 3 years, and more importantly the last 3 months, the corrupt government has demonstrated they will do anything to keep President Trump from regaining power.

They convicted him of countless felonies in a sham trial.

They indicted him for mishandling classified documents, and at the same time they had the audacity to tell the world that they were not going to prosecute Biden for exactly the same thing.

They tried to destroy him financially with a bogus civil case fining him hundreds of millions of dollars.

They tried to remove him from the ballot in several states.

None of that worked, and to the contrary, each of these things increased both President Trump’s popularity and his campaign contributions.

The stakes in this election are too high for the liberal Democrats to lose. If they lose, and President Trump was to return to his rightful office in the Whitehouse, the liberals lose their ability to force their demonic beliefs and policies on the American people.

If they lose, they lose their ability to force your children to believe women can be men and vice versa.

If they lose, the money flow from China to the corrupt Biden crime family gets turned off.

If they lose, they can't force you to buy an electric car and imaginarily save the world.

If they lose, they can't stack the Supreme Court with psychotic liberal justices who don't give a damn about the United States Constitution.

The bottom line is, if liberal Democrats lose this next presidential election, logic, honesty, and true concern for the American people starts returning to Washington…..and liberals simply cannot risk that.

Frankly, the liberals have used up every tool at their disposal to keep President Trump from returning to power, and nothing has worked. The only thing they have left is to remove Trump from the picture altogether.

Someone, with or without federal government assistance, tried to do just that last night. He failed. However, the stakes are even higher this morning, and I doubt very seriously that last night’s attempt on our President’s life is going to be the last such attempt between now and January of next year.

(Yes, you can share this, or copy and paste it, or tag me in it, or claim it as your own. (Whatever you want, I don't care.)

[smokeybrandcompositions]

Without Representation

Yo, this meme i posted about how billionaires don't pay taxes in the US, got flagged on Facebook for false information! I am absolutely beside myself right now. Like, the thing cited an article from The Dispatch (?), a Conservative biased, subscription based, online “newsletter,” stating that Zuck, in fact, only takes home a dollar a year in salary from his position as Facebook Overlord. You can't tax a dollar 's worth of income, bro. He's a billionaire because of his ownership stake in FB, and that's not income. See, that makes sense. Can't get taxed income taxes if that's not income. By the strictest, surface level, interpretation of current tax law, this article is correct. If you're an idiot who refuses to look deeper into any, boot-licking propaganda, this is more than enough for you to stan a Musk. The thing is, I'm not an idiot.

The bourgeoisie do that sh*t on purpose SPECIFICALLY to NOT pay their fair share BECAUSE of what i said above. You can have every bit of your opulence tied up in stocks, and never actually be taxed at your level of wealth, because it, technically, doesn't count toward it. It's not currency or actual money, but potential money. It's f*cking Schrodinger's fortune over here and you can't tax phantom numbers. If they sell some stock, cash it out, then, yeah, they're subject to income tax. They don't do that. They borrow against it. Take out massive loans they'll never pay back but, because those stocks are there, they're good for it. You don't pay taxes on loan money, bro. In fact, in some cases, you get a tax break for them! Another thing these assholes do is trade IN stocks. They exchange those stock for services and goods, but don't have to cash them out. Again, no cash out, no income tax! This sh*t is wild to me. Like, bro, are there people reading this rag and actually BELIEVING this nonsense? Are Conservatives this goddamn stupid? Yes, these robber barons and ultra capitalists don't pay income taxes because they technically don't receive income, but you're telling me the richest man in the world gets a pass on contributing to our society at a properly proportionate rate, because he's got accounts on his payroll who are good at exploiting technicalities?

Like, this isn't me being a "Coastal Liberal Elitist" or whatever. This is me being a smart person, who understand commerce. Any one can seek out federal tax returns from the richest motherf*ckers in the country. They're all saying pittance on the dollar, for their gross ass wealth! Bro, Trump was a billionaire when he got into his troubles and they released his tax records. Sh*t was national news. He hadn't paid a dime in close to two decades and only recently came out of pocket during his tenure as POTUS. During one of those rare, latter day years where he was at the mercy of the IRS, i paid more than he did! And Drumpf had a net worth laughably higher than mine! Bro boasted that he had four hundred million in liquid assets, that means, CASH, during one of his many, many, fraud depositions. Yet, here I am, turning over several times more in year end, government extortion, than he did. Now, his money doesn't necessarily come fro stocks. He grifts hard on real estate. Still, the game is the same. He borrows against those real estate evaluations, the same way someone like Zuck borrows against them FB stocks. Now, if Trump is on record ding that sh*t, the f*ck you think Elon is doing? Bezos? He makes his employees piss in bottles so he can have a super yacht so large, he had forced a country to dismantle a historic bridge so he could cruise it's riviera. A yacht that cost a couple hundred million to build. A yacht he thanked his grossly underpaid, laughably under insured, factory workers for basically trading their serfdom to be be built. Bro, telling me billionaires pay taxes, just because they receive paltry incomes during the year, is bullsh*t and intellectually dishonesty. sh*t is cartoonishly insulting. You f*cking know EXACTLY what we mean when we say these gluttonous leeches on society don't pay taxes.

[smokeybrand]

Without Representation

Yo, this meme i posted about how billionaires don't pay taxes in the US, got flagged on Facebook for false information! I am absolutely beside myself right now. Like, the thing cited an article from The Dispatch (?), a Conservative biased, subscription based, online “newsletter,” stating that Zuck, in fact, only takes home a dollar a year in salary from his position as Facebook Overlord. You can't tax a dollar 's worth of income, bro. He's a billionaire because of his ownership stake in FB, and that's not income. See, that makes sense. Can't get taxed income taxes if that's not income. By the strictest, surface level, interpretation of current tax law, this article is correct. If you're an idiot who refuses to look deeper into any, boot-licking propaganda, this is more than enough for you to stan a Musk. The thing is, I'm not an idiot.

The bourgeoisie do that sh*t on purpose SPECIFICALLY to NOT pay their fair share BECAUSE of what i said above. You can have every bit of your opulence tied up in stocks, and never actually be taxed at your level of wealth, because it, technically, doesn't count toward it. It's not currency or actual money, but potential money. It's f*cking Schrodinger's fortune over here and you can't tax phantom numbers. If they sell some stock, cash it out, then, yeah, they're subject to income tax. They don't do that. They borrow against it. Take out massive loans they'll never pay back but, because those stocks are there, they're good for it. You don't pay taxes on loan money, bro. In fact, in some cases, you get a tax break for them! Another thing these assholes do is trade IN stocks. They exchange those stock for services and goods, but don't have to cash them out. Again, no cash out, no income tax! This sh*t is wild to me. Like, bro, are there people reading this rag and actually BELIEVING this nonsense? Are Conservatives this goddamn stupid? Yes, these robber barons and ultra capitalists don't pay income taxes because they technically don't receive income, but you're telling me the richest man in the world gets a pass on contributing to our society at a properly proportionate rate, because he's got accounts on his payroll who are good at exploiting technicalities?

Like, this isn't me being a "Coastal Liberal Elitist" or whatever. This is me being a smart person, who understand commerce. Any one can seek out federal tax returns from the richest motherf*ckers in the country. They're all saying pittance on the dollar, for their gross ass wealth! Bro, Trump was a billionaire when he got into his troubles and they released his tax records. Sh*t was national news. He hadn't paid a dime in close to two decades and only recently came out of pocket during his tenure as POTUS. During one of those rare, latter day years where he was at the mercy of the IRS, i paid more than he did! And Drumpf had a net worth laughably higher than mine! Bro boasted that he had four hundred million in liquid assets, that means, CASH, during one of his many, many, fraud depositions. Yet, here I am, turning over several times more in year end, government extortion, than he did. Now, his money doesn't necessarily come fro stocks. He grifts hard on real estate. Still, the game is the same. He borrows against those real estate evaluations, the same way someone like Zuck borrows against them FB stocks. Now, if Trump is on record ding that sh*t, the f*ck you think Elon is doing? Bezos? He makes his employees piss in bottles so he can have a super yacht so large, he had forced a country to dismantle a historic bridge so he could cruise it's riviera. A yacht that cost a couple hundred million to build. A yacht he thanked his grossly underpaid, laughably under insured, factory workers for basically trading their serfdom to be be built. Bro, telling me billionaires pay taxes, just because they receive paltry incomes during the year, is bullsh*t and intellectually dishonesty. sh*t is cartoonishly insulting. You f*cking know EXACTLY what we mean when we say these gluttonous leeches on society don't pay taxes.

[nxtlevlpros]

How Do You Know If You’re Paying Too Much In Taxes?

You are not filing your taxes until the last possible moment. While this means you don’t have to deal with tax preparation as early as some of your friends and family members, it also means you will probably be paying too much in taxes at the end of the year and possibly not even know it! Here are seven sure fire signs that you may be paying too much in taxes, so you can take action before it’s too late.

Should I Pay An Accountant Or Prepare My Tax Return Myself?

If you have complicated tax situations, it’s a good idea to consult with an accountant. If not, and your situation is straightforward, it’s easier to prepare your tax return. Tax preparation software like TurboTax will guide you through each step of the process and help ensure that everything gets done correctly. When preparing your tax return yourself, always be sure to double-check all math and numbers; otherwise, mistakes can happen!

It’s important to file your taxes correctly and accurately to avoid paying more than necessary. Tax preparation is the process of filing a tax return, which is used by the government to collect revenue from tax-paying citizens and businesses. Filing as head of household, single, or married filing separately will depend on your particular situation.

Taxes are due annually by April 15th but can be filed as late as October 15th without penalty. As a taxpayer, it’s always important to understand your tax situation and how that may affect the type of return you need to file.

How Can I Tell If I'm Being Overcharged By My Accountant?

It’s hard to tell how good an accountant is at their job because it’s difficult to judge a book by its cover. However, there are a few ways you can tell whether or not your accountant is doing a good job. The first thing to pay attention to is how quickly they get back to you when dealing with questions and concerns. If they’re always responsive and helpful, this is a sign of competence. Another thing to look for is consistency. If they take time away from accounting to pursue other interests or jobs, then they may not be committed enough for the long term and could end up costing you money down the road.

How To Check If You Are Overpaying In Your Country

The easiest way to find out whether or not you are overpaying in taxes is to review your payslip. If your income is higher than the personal allowance, your employer may have been withholding too much income tax. You can also find out how much you should be paying by consulting the HMRC website. The calculator will take into account any other deductions that might be relevant, such as savings and pension contributions. It will also tell you the percentage of earnings that have gone to taxation.

When Should I Seek The Advice Of A Tax Specialist?

Everyone’s situation is different and the tax laws are complicated, which is why it’s important to speak to a tax specialist when you have any questions about your taxation status. If you find yourself asking am I paying too much in taxes? or would like help determining how much of your income will be subject to federal income tax this year, then a tax specialist may be able to help. A tax specialist can answer your specific questions, provide a more detailed analysis of your particular situation and even complete the necessary forms for you. Speaking with someone who specializes in the area of taxation could give you peace of mind and ensure that you’re not missing out on valuable deductions and credits!

Ways To Reduce Your Tax Rate

Taxes are a necessary evil, but that doesn’t mean we can’t cut our tax bill down by doing some simple things. To help identify areas where we might be overpaying, it’s important to understand the different types of taxes and how they work. There are five main types of income tax:

state income tax

federal income tax

local income tax

payroll withholding

self-employment tax

Each type is computed differently. Income from interest, dividends, and capital gains is treated differently than wages or salary. You may have to pay more than one type of income tax during the year because many people have more than one source of taxable income.

More Detailed Tax Tips

If you are self-employed, it is important to keep good records of your earnings so that your tax liability can be calculated accurately. If there is a change in circumstances, it can be difficult or impossible to go back and amend the past. It’s always better to keep track of your income and deductions as they happen, rather than waiting until the end of the year and trying to calculate what they should have been. The more organized your records are, the easier it will be to file an accurate return each year. it is important to consider having someone else help with preparing your annual tax returns. A qualified accountant can help ensure that you claim every deduction available and reduce the likelihood of being audited for errors or fraud.

Contact Us : 

Phone - 984-250-8715

Email - info@nxtlevlpros.com

Website - NxtLevl Professional Services, LLC

Blog - How Do You Know If You’re Paying Too Much In Taxes?

[realspacelasers]

OK so, broadly speaking. It's pretty inconvenient and unsafe to keep wads of cash in your house, and sometimes people need a big chunk of money all at once to be able to make more money. The platonic ideal of a bank solves one of these problems with the other.

When you deposit your money at a bank, the bank promises to keep it safe for you (so you don't have to worry about losing all your money if your house burns down) and to give it back to you when you ask. You pay for this service they're providing by allowing them to make loans with your money. The bank, ideally, does some careful vetting of people who come to them asking to borrow money, picks the ones who are most likely to pay it back, and lends them the money at interest. The interest on the loans is profit for the bank, and they might even pay you a portion of the interest for allowing them to use your money (though not as much as they're charging borrowers). The bank wants the loans to be secured with collateral - some valuable thing that the bank can take if the borrower stops paying. The collateral for a mortgage, for example, is the house itself.

The other thing the bank can do with your money is buy securities. The simplest example here is treasury bonds - you give the government $X, they promise to give you back $X plus interest in a fixed period of time. The bank gets a return that's quite a bit lower than it would be for a loan, but it gets to choose how long to tie the money up for, and bonds are easy to sell if it needs to raise cash.

In normal times, this works mostly fine. The bank doesn't have their vault full of cash for everyone who deposited their money with them, but that's okay, because mostly people don't need all their money back from the bank all at once. If people DO ask for their money back from the bank all at once (say, because they found out that the bank made a bunch of bad loans and isn't going to get their money back from the borrowers, so the bank doesn't have enough money to give back to all their depositors and if you don't get yours before they run out, you might not get anything at all), this is called a bank run.

Bank runs used to happen pretty often! But after a series of financial crises, we have increasingly decided as a society that it's bad for people to have to worry that their bank could fail and all their money could disappear. In the US, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) guarantees deposits up to $250,000. We also started requiring banks to hold more cash and things that could be easily converted into cash so that they could survive a bank run, and made a complex set of rules about what kind of risks a bank can take with your money, and generally tried to make it harder for a bank to get itself into a situation where all their customers wanted their money back and the bank didn't have it. Banks and bank shareholders hate these rules, because they cut down on the bank's profits.

So now we come to Silicon Valley Bank. SVB specialized in banking for tech startups and venture capitalists, and one of the quirks of tech startups backed by venture capitalists is that they have dump trucks full of cash from their VC investors, but usually not very much in the way of valuable stuff that they can use as collateral on a loan. So SVB had a lot of depositor money and not a lot of active loans, and to make a profit, they bought a lot of securities. The interest rates on securities tend to be higher the longer you agree to lock your money up. So during the depths of the pandemic, when interest rates were zero on short duration bonds, SVB bought a lot of longer duration bonds, some tying the money up for 10+ years. I think the average duration of their portfolio was 5.6 years? Don't quote me.

Then the Federal Reserve started raising interest rates to try to get inflation under control. And SVB had a double problem.

First off, tech startups turned out to be VERY sensitive to interest rates. If interest rates are zero, it kinda makes sense for an investor to gamble on a tech company that burns a lot of cash right now but might be super valuable in 10 years. It's not like the investor has a lot of better places to put their money. But if interest rates are above zero, the investor could get returns from safer investments. So funding for tech startups was drying up as interest rates rose, and SVB's clients were withdrawing money to pay their employees and bills, but not really showing up with dump trucks full of cash anymore. Not great, but maybe survivable if not for the second problem.

Say you, a bank, bought a 5-year $100 bond at 2% interest last year. Then interest rates go up. That same 5-year $100 bond would pay 5% interest if you bought it today. So if you want to sell your $100 bond, you can't get $100 back for it anymore, because anyone with $100 can buy a bond today and get a much better deal. In fact, your bond that you paid $100 for is only worth $87 if you have to sell it right now.

If you can NOT sell your bond, everything will eventually be some approximation of fine. You'll hold it for the full 5 years, get your $100 back, and buy a new bond at the new rate, probably for a shorter duration because when interest rates are changing a lot, it's risky to tie money up for a long time! You will have lost some money, amounting to the opportunity cost of not being able to buy the higher interest rate bond now because the money was already tied up, but you will probably survive as an institution. But if you have to sell your bond, say, because your depositors all want to withdraw their money, you take the losses right now and you can't pay your depositors back because you made a big bet on interest rates staying low and lost.

That is, roughly, what happened to SVB. They published a financial report noting, in a footnote, that a lot of the bonds they were holding weren't worth what they'd paid for them anymore. Silicon Valley VCs noticed and worked themselves up about it in group chats and on Twitter. The VCs told the startups they were funding to pull their money out of SVB. SVB had to sell their bonds to get cash to pay the depositors and turn those hypothetical losses into real losses. The more SVB's stash of things it could quickly exchange for cash evaporated, the more it became the 100% rational choice to get your money out, because it might not be there if you waited. A good old-fashioned bank run.

Notably, SVB is NOT the only bank holding a lot of bonds that are no longer worth what they paid for them. Lots of banks are in that situation right now. But because of SVB's weird customer base, SVB was the MOST in that situation, because they held a whole LOT of their money in long duration bonds.

Also notably, SVB lobbied hard for lower US regulatory standards and a bill passed in 2018 loosened the regulations that applied to (among other US banks) SVB.

I don't think that was ELI5 but maybe it was comprehensible? I recommend Matt Levine's Money Stuff newsletter if you want usually understandable and often funny explainers of what's going on in the world of finance.

For anyone wondering what happened to make Silicon Valley Bank here's the TL:DR:

SVB had very few consumer loans. Their investment base was primarily government bonds. A government bond is basically a loan to the gov at a fixed rate for a set period.

Their liability base was primarily consumer and investor savings.

They made money on the difference between what they were paying people in interest for their savings, and what the gov was paying them for the bonds.

They were then investing their profits into startups and tech businesses.

Then the loan rate rose, the interest rate on savings went up in the market, and to stay competative they had to put their rates up. They can't reclaim their investments as startups don't have the money to give back. The rate rises, their profits shrink, and they go boom.

[maryellencarter]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT THIS IS ACTUALLY MASSIVE

so okay the biden administration is cancelling either $10k or $20k in federally-held student debt (i.e. if you've been getting letters from the department of education about the loan pause you're probably in that category) for people making under $125k a year while single or $250k a year as a household

you get the $20k forgiveness amount if you had pell grants, which for instance i did (for my non us based peeps these are the main non-loan way that poor people get college/university cost help here, so doing a higher amount for pell grant recipients is an efficient way of saying "you were / probably still are extra poor, have some more help"), and the $10k amount if you didn't have pell grants

if you're already on an income based repayment plan and fit the other qualifications, they're just gonna go ahead and do the thing, no extra action from you needed. if you're in default like me, or if you're not sure if the department of education currently has the proof of income paperwork they'll need (probably either your latest tax return or, if you didn't file taxes recently, some pay stubs or, if you don't have an income, a notarized affidavit stating that you don't), then there's going to be a government website to upload that information and apply to the program. you can subscribe to dept of education emails about student loans (link is at the bottom of the page when you follow my link to the fact sheet at the top of this post) to be notified when the webpage goes up.

FURTHERMORE, though, and to my mind this is actually bigger -- they're making major changes to how student loan payments and forgiveness are calculated going forward! for income based repayment plans, they're adjusting the income qualifications so that (roughly) no one making under $15 an hour will have to make payments, anyone who makes above that amount will only have to pay half the percentage of their income above the amount that they used to (5% of the amount you make over $31k instead of 10% of the amount over $19k, rounded and slightly sloppily calculatd, but which ADDS UP), you can get your remaining amount forgiven in 10 years instead of the previous 20/25 if you make your payments on time (including if the payments you're making "on time" are $0), and. AND AND AND.

NO MORE INTEREST IF YOU'RE MAKING YOUR PAYMENTS.

I borrowed about $12k for college. I owe about $20k now, because of student loan interest. I haven't been arsed to get out of default for five years, because the interest every month would still have been accruing if I was on an income based payment plan, so my amount owed would actually go *up* every month. NO MORE. If I'm reading this right, and I think I am, the government is going to cover your interest for as long as you make your payments -- again, even if the "payment" you're making on your repayment plan is $0.

This is the biggest fucking thing for poor people's finances since, I don't know, I literally don't even fucking know. The friggin New Deal maybe, I literally don't know. $10k/$20k is eyedropper amounts compared to the sea of student debt, yeah (although for me personally it might knock out my entire amount owed), but this? Having payments that are both halfway affordable AND ACTUALLY LOWER YOUR REMAINING DEBT? I... I don't know what to fucking say. I didn't even imagine -- it did not enter my head that they might cover interest on more than the tiny piddly amount you can get in "subsidized" loans. And for the life of the loans if you make your payments? And for that being 10 years max instead of 25? *falls over*

Anyway you can read all the official verbage at that link up there in case I'm misreading anything. but HOLY FUCK *runs in circles and falls over again*

[the-empress-7]

“And how many government agencies handle it well when a politician bullies their staff?”

I am a govt employee. I work for the federal govt (US).

People in the civil service have a ton of power over each other, especially after their probation has ended and especially if they’re in a leadership position over others. You literally need a scandal worthy of the newspaper’s front page in order to push someone in a leadership position out of office. Higher-ups will sweep everything under the rug or look the other way when it comes to bullying and toxic behavior and after it comes out in the papers, there’s a rush to over-correct and over-defend but they’ve already damaged morale and all the good people will have left.

That is what’s happening with the BRF. The staff couldn’t get any attention from BRF higher-ups until they got on the papers’ front page. Now the higher-ups are scrambling to cover their a$$ but it’s too little too late. Will and Kate did the best they could to move their team away from the toxic person but their hands were tied because they probably had rules or non-competes. What is telling to me is that most of the staff that the Cambs shared with the Harkles quit working for their royal offices and joined the Cambs at their foundation (like Jason) or who left royal service completely and returned after a few months away (like Amy).

Thank you for this perspective. Your comment about the staff quitting but then choosing to go work for the Cambridges reminded me of this saying: “People don’t leave companies, they leave managers” Data shows this to be 100% true.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

December 22, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

DEC 23, 2023

Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis released today showed inflation continuing to come down. In November the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index was 2.6% over the previous November, down from 2.9% in October. The Federal Reserve aims for 2%. Falling gas prices meant that overall, prices actually dropped in November for the first time since April 2020. 

In a statement, President Joe Biden reminded Americans that “[a] year ago, most forecasters predicted it would require a spike in joblessness and a slowdown to get inflation down. I never believed that. I never gave up on the hard work, grit, and resilience of millions of Americans.” In addition to the falling inflation rate, he noted that “the unemployment rate has stayed below 4 percent for 22 months in a row, and wages, wealth, and the share of working-age Americans with jobs are higher now than they were before the pandemic began.” 

“But,” he said, “our work is far from finished.” To continue to lower prices for hardworking families, he said, he is focused “on lowering costs—from bringing down the price of insulin, prescription drugs, and energy, to addressing hidden junk fees companies use to rip you off, to calling on large corporations to pass savings on to consumers as their costs moderate.”

The administration is highlighting economic numbers not just because they are good—and they are: real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by an astonishing annual rate of 4.9% in the third quarter of 2023; under Trump it was 2.5% before the pandemic knocked the bottom out of everything—but also because they illustrate the administration’s return to an economic theory under which the U.S. government operated from 1933 to 1981.

In those years the federal government focused on supporting people on the “demand side” of the economy in the belief that what drives economic growth is demand for goods and services. This theory means that the government should work to make sure workers and those at the bottom of the economy have money to afford the goods and services they need. This theory suggests that education and good wages and a basic social safety net are good for the economy because they enable people to have enough disposable income that they can buy things.

After President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, though, a different economic theory took hold. People in power believed that what drives growth is not the demand side, but rather the “supply side” of the economy: the people who create goods and services. This theory means that the government should work to make sure that producers can concentrate wealth and use it however they wish, because they will invest in the economy, producing more goods more cheaply and thus creating more jobs at better wages. This theory calls for little business regulation or taxation, both of which hurt the accumulation of wealth, and trusts market forces, rather than government policies, to keep the economy fair. 

Neither of these theories is new in the United States, although in every incarnation they have had different elements and emphases. But today the struggle between those who believe in one side or the other is central to politics. 

While Biden and the Democrats are working hard to support the demand side of the economy, Republicans are firmly in the camp of the supply side. On this date in 2017, then-president Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, sometimes referred to as the Trump tax cuts. Passed with Republican votes alone, the law cut tax rates for individuals until 2025 but made cuts in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% permanent. 

Together with the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush and made permanent by lawmakers of both parties in 2013, the Trump tax cuts went primarily to households in the top 1% and to large corporations. In testimony in May 2023 before the Senate Committee on the Budget, tax analyst Samantha Jacoby of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that these tax cuts “ballooned deficits” while there is little evidence that they promoted growth. 

Bobby Kogan from the Center for American Progress, who previously worked in the Biden-Harris White House, noted in March 2023 that Reagan’s tax cuts, which amounted to about $10 trillion, started a bipartisan effort to reduce spending and increase revenues. Those efforts meant that President Bill Clinton left office with budget surpluses. At the time, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that even with an aging population and increasing healthcare costs, revenues would keep up with the costs of domestic programs.

But the massive Bush tax cuts threw that projection off. By the end of fiscal year 2023, those cuts will have cost more than $8 trillion, and most of the savings went to the wealthy. Trump’s tax cuts continued both of those patterns: they will cost about $1.7 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2023 and they, too, benefited primarily the wealthy and corporations. At a cost of almost $10 trillion, these combined tax cuts are central to the budget deficit and growing national debt.

For all the complaints about American tax rates, the U.S. ranks 32nd out of 38 nations in revenue as a percentage of GDP in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of market-based democracies devoted to “achiev[ing] the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living.” The U.S. is so much below the average ratio that if its ratio were simply average, it would bring in $26 trillion more over 10 years. 

Yet Republicans back making all the Trump tax cuts permanent; Trump and his advisors have called for still deeper tax cuts, possibly cutting the corporate tax rate to 15%; and House Republicans want to cut funding for the Internal Revenue Service that enables it to audit wealthy tax cheats.

Meanwhile, Republican representative David Schweikert (R-AZ), vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, who is deeply concerned about the budget deficits, believes that what is driving those deficits is that Americans are aging. Like many of his colleagues, including Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, he believes the answer to fixing the budget is cutting Social Security, Medicare, and other services. 

Tax policy and economic news sometimes come across as piecemeal and dull, but they are, at the end of the day, the story of how we think societies prosper and what role governments and markets should play to nurture that prosperity.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

handle with care

[cleverwordsandotherstuffilike]

The Dam Is Breaking on Vaccine Mandates

It didn’t need to be this way. This spring, as people lined up for newly available, miraculously effective Covid-19 vaccines, it was easy to imagine a direct and speedy path to a protected society. The curve of administered doses appeared limited only by the supply, and the curve was looking good—perfectly calibrated for things to be normal (at least by some definition of the word) by the end of summer, just in time for schools and workplaces to reopen. So long as the vaccination rate kept pace.

Which, of course, it didn’t. Much too soon, the curve reached its inflection point, shifted from the upswing, and flattened itself out. Add to that a euphoric, masks-off reopening in much of the country. Then add the more transmissible Delta variant. Result: a pandemic of the unvaccinated that, because of its immense scale, now threatens even people with two shots, thanks to the possibility of breakthrough infections.

All of this has added up to a tipping point: The week when the carrot met the stick, when dozens of influential organizations decided it’s time for vaccine mandates.

This afternoon President Joe Biden announced vaccine rules for 4 million federal workers. “Right now, too many people are dying, or watching someone they love die,” he said. Those workers will now face a choice: attest to their completed vaccination status, or test one or two times a week, wear masks, and face travel restrictions.

“We have the tools to prevent the next wave of Covid shutting down our businesses, our schools, our society,” he said, adding that the government would reimburse small businesses that allow workers to take paid time off to vaccinate themselves or their families, and that his administration encourages state and local governments to offer residents $100 incentives. Biden also instructed the Department of Defense to look into how and when it will require Covid-19 vaccinations for members of the armed forces.

Biden’s announcement followed similar statements from a flurry of major tech firms, including Google and Facebook, which have told their tens of thousands of employees around the country that vaccinations will be required for workers returning to the office, and an earlier raft of mandates from universities, state governments and medical centers.

The moves received more legal clarity last month, after a federal judge threw out a lawsuit from a group of employees at Houston Methodist Hospital who had argued the rules were illegal because the vaccines are only authorized by the FDA for emergency use.

And it’s not just employers. In San Francisco, for example, most of the city’s bars and clubs said they will require proof from patrons starting this week.

Is it ideal to force people into doing the right thing for public health? Not really, says Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, an epidemiologist who studies health equity at UC San Francisco. That's why you first try messaging to overcome skeptics and incentives for those who need a nudge—as public health officials have done for months and will continue to do, she adds. But at this critical stage of the pandemic, the mandates are welcome news to her. “We need to use every tool at our disposal,” she says. “It’s clearly the right thing to do at this point, and hopefully it will build into more places taking action.”

There’s already a clear herding effect at play. A vanguard of leaders from hospitals, universities, and state governments made the initial argument—that the benefits of protecting their patients and residents from unvaccinated workers outweighs the worries of individual employees—and clarified that the mandates are legal. Then the big tech corporations got on board, theorizing that a fully vaccinated workforce would be good for business. They’ve been a sort of Covid cultural bellwether, leading the shutdown of offices in March 2020, with many shifting to remote work for the long term.

Those moves make mandates more palatable for companies everywhere else. In May, only 6 percent of companies reached by the consulting firm Willis Towers Watson said they were planning to require vaccinations for all employees. But now many more are considering their own plans, says Jeffrey Levin-Scherz, a doctor who leads population health at Willis Towers Watson. “The public acceptance of mandates is the biggest driver,” he says. Mandates are getting normalized—and that in turn, he hopes, will normalize getting vaccinated too.

“I think there’s been a reality check,” says Jennifer Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. Controlling the Delta variant and preventing new ones are the chief public health reasons for mandates. And for businesses, that makes for a simple calculus: Bumping up vaccination rates means less economic uncertainty. “That’s why businesses are doing this,” she says.

One argument for mandates, Bibbins-Domingo says, is that many of those who remain unvaccinated are open to it, but appear to need a new type of nudge. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 10 percent of respondents are still on the fence, and another 6 percent said they are waiting on a vaccine requirement. (Add those up, and it’s more than the 14 percent who said they would never get the vaccine.) That new nudge could be a mandate, or it could be institutions setting up slightly unpleasant alternatives to getting vaccinated, like more frequent testing or required indoor masking. “It’s a tried-and-true public health strategy,” she says. “I think we had to make being unvaccinated a little bit less convenient.”

For now, the country has a patchwork of vaccine mandates, and those patches are concentrated in wealthier, coastal regions where vaccination rates tend to be higher. They’re bound to be less common in places where political messaging, amplified by misinformation on social media, has discouraged vaccine uptake. It’s the same politicized pattern seen throughout the pandemic with issues like masks.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-dam-is-breaking-on-vaccine-mandates/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Allow people to exercise their right to refuse to vaccinate and to enjoy that freedom while confined to their homes 24 hours /day until they agree to vaccinate. Legitimate medical issues are of course exempt.