#itep

[more-flotsam-and-jetsam]

[elodie-butler]

Hey je ne sais pas si beaucoup de gens vont lire ceci mais c'est pas grave j'ai juste envie de raconter mes petites anecdotes de mon boulot ici .

Pour commencer je suis Élodie enchantée ! Je suis française et même si j'ai appris l'anglais j'ai pas envie de me casser la tête a tout écrire en anglais 😅 . Je travaille dans un itep avec des enfants qui ont des troubles du comportement... C'est pas rose tout les jours et il t'en fait voir de toutes les couleurs mais c'est un métier tout simplement passionnant et étrangement drôle parfois c'est pour cela que je veux raconter mes petites expériences qui on pu être très drôle .

Il faut savoir que je fais un service civique dans cette itep donc je ne pourrai pas y travailler très longtemps. Le seul moyen pour moi d'y travailler et de reprendre mes études et être embauchée là-bas mais bref !

Ma première anecdote est courte mais vraiment drôle c'était au tour début de mon service civique. On m'avait confié un enfant pour manger avec moi dans une salle et faire un temps duel . Cet enfant est connu pour être assez violent parfois et avoir des crises très rapidement . J'étais légèrement paniqué mais je voulais pas qu'il s'en aperçoive 😅 donc on part manger mais je vois qu'il s'occupe pas vraiment de moi ... J'essaie de lui parler mais rien à faire il s'en moque . On mange tranquillement puis il se lève d'un coup pour aller jouer avec une épée en carton qu'un enfant avait fait. Il faut savoir que l'enfant en question y tenait beaucoup,donc je lui demande de faire attention mais il me frappe avec . Il ne m'avait pas vraiment taper fort et c'était sûrement pour jouer mais l'objet était fragile donc je lui demande de le reposer et il le fait mais part en courant en dehors de la salle. J'essaie de le rappeler et de le rattraper mais le perd de vue . Je le recherche partout... Sort dans la cour et le voit de loin courir vers la porte d'entrée. Deviné quoi ? Il m'a enfermé dehors... 😅 Après quelques secondes je vois un éducateur arriver en tenant l'enfant par la main . Il me voit dehors m'ouvre la porte et rigole... Vous voyez le scénario quoi . Rien qui d'y repenser me donne envie de me cacher mais c'était vraiment drôle y'a pas a dire après c'est vrai que de le raconté comme ça par écrit et moins drole mais essayer d'imaginer 🥹.

Je tiens à vous dire que ma relation avec cet enfant s'est vraiment améliorée et j'en suis très heureuse .

Si t'a lu jusqu'ici je te dis bravo et merci en vrai 😂

Si t'a des questions concernant ce boulot ne te gêne pas ça me ferait plaisir

Merki 😘

[blogoslibertarios]

Tentativa de fuga de detento no Itep termina em tiroteio na Ribeira

Foto: ALEX RÉGIS Um detento que estava sob custódia para a realização de um exame de corpo de delito no Instituto Técnico-Científico de Perícia (Itep) tentou fugir durante a madrugada desta segunda-feira (21). A tentativa de fuga resultou em um tiroteio na Avenida Duque de Caxias, no bairro da Ribeira, zona Leste de Natal. A assessoria do Itep confirmou o ocorrido. Segundo relatado, o detento…

[soalkie]

Hate the phrase "those who cannot do teach." Babe, you have to do to teach. Do it backwards and mirrored and upside down while monologuing. You have to do it with a song and while also watching a room full of others doing it. You have to do it with 50¢ crayons and some tape in under 10 minutes. TF you mean CAN'T????

[shirleywhere]

[cyntheshepicone]

Ahhhh I missed the newer episodes but from seeing clips they did foop/itep so dirty that it's funny tbh cube head looking dork lmao. I feel like they nerfed him cause peris aura is already to powerful

[meret118]

As Republican nominee Donald Trump advances proposals that would further enrich the wealthiest Americans and profitable corporations, an analysis published Wednesday found that Vice President Kamala Harris' tax policy agenda would on average hike taxes on the nation's top 1% while cutting them for every other income group.

The new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) follows its in-depth examination of Trump's tax proposals, which the group found would cut taxes for the richest 5% of Americans and raise them for everyone else.

[rita-rae-siller]

The White Cloaks: Religious Faction Overview

The White Cloaks

A religious sect of knights in the Garmoran Military dedicated to Gora. They devoutly follow the Isvaad’ahl, the Garmoran holy texts that date back to the days of Old Akar. It dictates how the soldiers spend their day, the way they fight, and how they die. The scripture is widely followed throughout the central empire, but on the fringes, where Garmoran religion hasn’t taken root yet, few follow its laws. In essence, it’s like a polytheistic version of the bible, full of stories of old Akarii heroes and legends, along with newer additions from the founding of the first Garmoran empire.

The order was not always part of the empire’s military directly. During the first empire, they were an independent organization that assisted the emperor in times of need, alongside three other religious orders; the Silver Strings, the Silent Sisters, and the Red Legion.Over time, with careful selection of leadership influenced by the nobility and the royal dynasties, the White Cloaks were brought into the imperial army’s fold.Now, they serve as guards for the highest and mightiest of the empire. 

More below the cut!

Gold Division: Protects the emperor directly. Two captains, forty soldiers per captain. This is the most coveted of divisions. It is almost exclusively made up of the children of nobilities and the high ranking knights born into the order.

Silver Division: Protects the Empress, as well as Matilde and Alura. Two captains, one has twenty men, one has sixty. There were three captains, but Matilde got Captain Moraga fired, so now there are only 2. Alura’s retinue absorbed Matilde’s

Ruby Division: Protects Cardinal Laemos, leader of the Temple of Gora. One captain, fifty soldiers.

Sapphire Division: Protects Cardinal Movros, Temple of Itep. One captain, forty soldiers 

Obsidian Division: Protects Cardinal Lathima, Temple of Silus. One Captain, twenty soldiers. (she has even more guards from another order as well, but the White Cloaks are a courtesy of the emperor.)

Topaz Division: Protects Cardinal Poria, Temple of Sodek. One Captain, forty soldiers

Diamond Division: Protects Cardinal Hakke, Temple of Aru. One Captain, forty soldiers

The order is a shadow of its former self (cut from thousands of warriors across the central empire to just a few hundred soldiers). The emperor and the College have done a lot of work to keep these powerful warriors on a tight leash out of fear of an uprising.

Because of this, many of the knighthood have come to believe the Avaareyani dynasty has turned from the gods. There are mutterings of a Holy War, mutiny, and dark times for the empire. Aalvor is among the older knights that believes the timing is right for the next Hariiv to arrive (More on this in a separate doc)

The knighthood is split on their opinion of Alura, but many believe she shows signs of being the next messiah. 

Most of the soldiers are trained from a very young age. Some promise children to the order before they’re born. Once upon a time, the order consisted of soldiers from all walks of life. Now, it is more of an exclusive club.

Only true Garmoran’s can be promised now. Nobles will promise their children to the order just days after birth, which fills a good majority of their ranks. Aalvor is a prime example! He is actually one of Dioclaetus’ younger brothers. Their father promised Aalvor to the Knights hours after his birth. His oaths prevent him from ever seeking the throne, not that he wants it anyway. He's too busy being a killer dad and a great dude in general.

Men and women may serve, but the majority are men. 

Alura almost took the oaths, but Dioclaetus decided she was too useful to keep sequestered in his guard. But she’s in good with a lot of them.

[deutschland-im-krieg]

Pre-war Arado Ar 68 (D-ITEP). For more, see my Facebook group - Eagles Of The Reich

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Today, President Joe Biden signed the continuing resolution that will give lawmakers another week to finalize appropriations bills. Lawmakers will continue to hash out the legislation that will fund the government. 

Republicans have been stalling the appropriations bills for months. In addition to inserting their own extremist cultural demands in the measures, they have demanded budget cuts to address the fact that the government spends far more money than it brings in. 

As soon as Mike Johnson (R-LA) became House speaker, he called for a “debt commission” to address the growing budget deficit. This struck fear into the hearts of those eager to protect Social Security and Medicare, because when Johnson chaired the far-right Republican Study Committee in 2020, it called for cutting those popular programs by raising the age of eligibility, lowering cost-of-living adjustments, and reducing benefits for retirees whose annual income is higher than $85,000. Lawmakers don’t want to take on such unpopular proposals, so setting up a commission might be a workaround.

Last month, the House Budget Committee advanced legislation that would create such a commission. The chair of the House Budget Committee, Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX), told reporters that Speaker Johnson was “100% committed to this commission” and wanted to attach it to the final appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2024, the laws currently being hammered out.

Congress has not yet agreed to this proposed commission, and a recent Data for Progress poll showed that 70% of voters reject the idea of it. 

This week, a new report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a nonprofit think tank that focuses on tax policy, suggested that the cost of tax cuts should be factored into any discussions about the budget deficit. 

In 2017 the Trump tax cuts slashed the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and reined in taxation for foreign profits. The ITEP report looked at the first five years the law was in effect. It concluded that in that time, most profitable corporations paid “considerably less” than 21% because of loopholes and special breaks the law either left in place or introduced. 

From 2018 through 2022, 342 companies in the study paid an average effective income tax rate of just 14.1%. Nearly a quarter of those companies—87 of them—paid effective tax rates of under 10%. Fifty-five of them (16% of the 342 companies), including T-Mobile, DISH Network, Netflix, General Motors, AT&T, Bank of America, Citigroup, FedEx, Molson Coors, and Nike, paid effective tax rates of less than 5%.

Twenty-three corporations, all of them profitable, paid no federal tax over the five year period. One hundred and nine corporations paid no federal tax in at least one of the five years. 

The Guardian’s Adam Lowenstein noted yesterday that several corporations that paid the lowest taxes are steered by chief executive officers who are leading advocates of “stakeholder capitalism.” This concept revises the idea that corporations should focus on the best interests of their shareholders to argue that corporations must also take care of the workers, suppliers, consumers, and communities affected by the corporation. 

The idea that corporate leaders should take responsibility for the community rather than paying taxes to the government so the community can take care of itself is eerily reminiscent of the argument of late-nineteenth-century industrialists. 

When Republicans invented national taxation to meet the extraordinary needs of the Civil War, they immediately instituted a progressive federal income tax because, as Representative Justin Smith Morrill (R-VT) said, “The weight [of taxation] must be distributed equally, not upon each man an equal amount, but a tax proportionate to his ability to pay.” 

But the wartime income tax expired in 1872, and the rise of industry made a few men spectacularly wealthy. Quickly, those men came to believe they, rather than the government, should direct the country’s development. 

In June 1889, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie published what became known as the “Gospel of Wealth” in the popular magazine North American Review. Carnegie explained that “great inequality…[and]...the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few” were “not only beneficial, but essential to…future progress.” And, Carnegie asked, “What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few?”

Rather than paying higher wages or contributing to a social safety net—which would “encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy,” Carnegie wrote—the man of fortune should “consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer…in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.”  

“[T]his wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if distributed in small sums to the people themselves,” Carnegie wrote. “Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among themselves in trifling amounts through the course of many years.”

Here in the present, Republicans want to extend the Trump tax cuts after their scheduled end in 2025, a plan that would cost $4 trillion over a decade even without the deeper cuts to the corporate tax rate Trump has called for if he is reelected. Biden has called for preserving the 2017 tax cuts only for those who make less than $400,000 a year and permitting the rest to expire. He has also called for higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, which would generate more than $2 trillion. 

Losing the revenue part of the budget equation and focusing only on spending cuts seems to reflect a society like the one the late-nineteenth-century industrialists embraced, in which a few wealthy leaders get to decide how to direct the nation’s wealth.   

[LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN: MARCH 1, 2024]

Heather Cox Richardson

+

“The crucial disadvantage of aggression, competitiveness, and skepticism as national characteristics is that these qualities cannot be turned off at five o'clock.” —Margaret Halsey, novelist (13 Feb 1910-1997)

[elkniwirep-anti-fairywinkle]

iaep ibep icep idep ifep igep ihep ijep ikep ilep imep inep ioep ipep iqep irep isep itep iuep ivep iwep ixep iyep izep

[blogoslibertarios]

Laudo indica que alunos passaram mal em escola no RN após tomarem água com diazepam

Foto: Itep / Reprodução   Os alunos que passaram mal na semana passada em uma escola municipal de Governador Dix-Sept Rosado, no Oeste Potiguar, sentiram o mal-estar depois de ingerir água misturada com um medicamento. É o que aponta um laudo preliminar elaborado pelo Instituto Técnico-Científico de Perícia (Itep) do Rio Grande do Norte. Os estudantes passaram mal e foram levados a unidades de…

[historicalhyperfications]

To my fellow USAmericans! A very important study coming from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has been published and it's not seeing much light in major news channels. Spread this like wildfire!

It's also available as a PDF so screenshot away but make sure you keep that citation! This is an institution with pretty strong rapport.

TLDR 41 of 50 states have been shown to be taxing it's wealthiest residents at rates higher than that of its poorest.

[shirleywhere]

Mysterious Venn diagram found at school.

[msclaritea]

Forty-four of 50 US states worsen inequality with ‘upside-down’ taxes | US income inequality | The Guardian

Forty-four of 50 US states worsen inequality with ‘upside-down’ taxes

New research found that poorest fifth pay a tax rate 60% higher, on average, than the top 1% of households

"A total of 44 of the 50 US states worsen inequality by making the wealthy pay a lesser share of their income in taxes than lower income people, a new analysis has found.

State and local tax regimes are “upside-down”, the new research finds, with weak or non-existent personal income taxes in many states allowing richer Americans to avoid tax. A reliance on sales and excise taxes, considered regressive because they disproportionately impact the poor, has helped fuel this inequality, according to the report.

CEOs of top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms earn $601 for every $1 by worker, report finds

“When you ask people what they think a fair tax code looks like, almost nobody says we should have the richest pay the least,” said Carl Davis, research director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), which conducted the analysis.

“And yet when we look around the country, the vast majority of states have tax systems that do just that. There’s an alarming gap here between what the public wants and what state lawmakers have delivered.”

Only six states, plus the District of Columbia, have tax systems that reduce inequality rather than worsen it, with the poorest fifth of people paying a tax rate 60% higher, on average, than the top 1% of households.

The super-wealthy are treated particularly lightly by the tax system, with the top 1% paying less than every other income group across 42 states. In most states, 36 in all, the poorest residents are taxed at a higher rate than any other group.

The most regressive states in terms of taxation are, in order, Florida, Washington, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Nevada. The least regressive jurisdictions are DC, Minnesota, Vermont, New York and California.

Various state-level policies, such as cutting taxes on the wealthy to supposedly drive economic activity, has worsened this situation, the report found. Inequality in recent decades has been far starker in the US than in other comparable countries and while some pandemic-era interventions, such as a child tax credit, lessened the burden on the poorest in society, many of those measures have now lapsed.

“But we know it doesn’t have to be like this,” said Aidan Davis, ITEP’s state policy director.

“There is a clear path forward for flipping upside-down tax systems and we’ve seen a handful of states come pretty close to pulling it off. The regressive state tax laws we see today are a policy choice, and it’s clear there are better choices available to lawmakers.”

• This article was amended on 11 January 2024. Owing to incorrect information supplied to us, an earlier version listed New Jersey as the fifth least regressive tax jurisdiction, according to the ITEP report, rather than California."

[foreverlogical]

A Washington-based married couple's challenge to an obscure provision of the 2017 Republican tax law has the potential to become "the most important tax case in a century," with far-reaching implications for federal revenues, key social programs, and Congress' constitutional authority to impose levies on income.

That's according to a new report released Wednesday by the Roosevelt Institute and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).

The policy groups estimated that if the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in Moore v. United States—which the justices are set to take up in December—nearly 400 multinational corporations could collectively receive more than $270 billion in tax relief, further enriching behemoths such as Apple, Microsoft, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Google.

The Roosevelt Institute and ITEP also found that Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito own stock in 19 companies that are poised to receive a combined $30 billion in tax breaks if the judges strike down the 2017 law's mandatory repatriation tax, a one-time levy targeting earnings that multinational corporations had piled up overseas.

But the case could have impacts well beyond a repeal of the repatriation tax, which was projected to generate $340 billion in federal revenue over a decade.

Depending on the scope of the justices' decision, the new report argues, the Supreme Court could "suddenly supplant Congress as a major American tax policymaker, putting at legal jeopardy much of the architecture of laws that prevent corporations and individuals from avoiding taxes, and introducing great uncertainty about our democracy's ability to tax large corporations and the most affluent."

"At the best of times, blowing a $340 billion hole in the federal budget would be catastrophic," Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at ITEP and a co-author of the new report, said in a statement. "And if the court invalidates the transition tax in its Moore decision, that's exactly what would happen: possibly the costliest Supreme Court decision of all time. And it would be hard to identify a less deserving set of tax cut beneficiaries than the companies that would reap at least $271 billion from repealing this tax."

"The Roberts Court could decide with the stroke of a pen to simultaneously forgive big business decades of tax dues."

Charles and Kathleen Moore brought their challenge to the repatriation provision after they were hit with a roughly $15,000 tax bill stemming from their stake in an Indian farm equipment company. As the Tax Policy Center recently observed, the Indian firm is a "controlled foreign corporation (CFC), or a foreign corporation whose ownership or voting rights are more than 50% owned by U.S. persons who each own at least 10%."

The Moores' cause has been championed by billionaire-backed organizations and corporate lobbying groups, including the Manhattan Institute–which is chaired by billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer—and the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"That such a case involving such modest sums would make it all the way to the high court indicates that there is much more at play than a single family's tax refund," ITEP's Gardner and Spandan Marasini and the Roosevelt Institute's Niko Lusiani note in the new report.

The plaintiffs' legal team argues that because the Moores' shares in the Indian firm were not "realized"—they did not sell or receive a distribution from the company—they should not have been on the hook for the repatriation tax.

"The government, on the other hand, argues that almost a century of tax law precedent has established Congress' broad authority to decide when and how to tax income, even without a specific realization event," the new report explains. "What's more, the income was clearly realized by the corporation, which is sufficient for income taxation of shareholders under various provisions of the existing tax code."

While it's possible that the Supreme Court will rule narrowly on the specifics of the Moores' situation, the report authors cautioned that the justices "could also issue a broad decision that taxing income—of an individual or a corporate shareholder—requires realization, and that income taxation on multiple years of accrued income is unconstitutional."

Such a sweeping ruling could preemptively ban a wealth tax—an outcome that right-wing supporters of the Moores have explicitly advocated.

"This case presents the court with an ideal opportunity to clarify that taxes on unrealized gains, such as wealth taxes, are direct taxes that are unconstitutional if not apportioned among the states," the Manhattan Institute declared in a May amicus brief.

A broad ruling by the high court could also imperil key elements of the existing tax code, according to ITEP and the Roosevelt Institute.

"One of the most established of these pillars is known as Subpart F, which was enacted in 1962 to prevent American corporations from avoiding taxation through offshore entities or controlled foreign corporations," the new report says. "Provisions related to Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI), the branch profits tax; tax treatment of corporate debt; and others could be uprooted by five justices."

"The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax—enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act to create a basic corporate tax floor—as well as international efforts to curb international tax avoidance could be made constitutionally invalid," the report adds.

The analysis stresses that the consequences of a broad ruling in the upcoming case would be profound, affecting more than just a handful of corporate tax provisions.

"In Moore," the report warns, "the Roberts Court could decide with the stroke of a pen to simultaneously forgive big business decades of tax dues, increase the federal deficit over the long run, jeopardize future public revenue and essential social programs, escalate these multinational companies' already sizeable after-tax profits, and further enrich their shareholders."