|
My favorite is the IRS 1040 which is just 14 pages of tables to just look up how much you owe covering every possible income amount between 25 and 100k
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:My favorite is the IRS 1040 which is just 14 pages of tables to just look up how much you owe covering every possible income amount between 25 and 100k The alternative is to expect Americans to do math, so I don’t blame them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
My favorite part is how simplifying the tax code and shifting work away from individuals to the government is opposed by a powerful business lobby
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:21
|
|
|
haveblue posted:My favorite part is how simplifying the tax code and shifting work away from individuals to the government is opposed by a powerful business lobby A business that they're supposed to be doing for free
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
haveblue posted:My favorite part is how simplifying the tax code and shifting work away from individuals to the government is opposed by a powerful business lobby My favorite part is gently caress Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:What are the chances that a normal wage-earner owes tax rather than getting a refund of withholdings? In addition to what everyone else said, the tax form you're required to fill out for any normal wage job (called a W-4) is designed to over withhold if you follow the instructions (in fact you can find a bunch of pages on the internet with tips on how do it so it more accurately estimates your tax liability and you get more in your paycheck every month instead of getting a big return, since a big return is just an interest free loan you made to the government for a year). That the standard instructions err on the side of calculating too much withholding is, of course, intentional on the part of the IRS because withholding a bit too much ensures they collect all the money. They don't want to withhold too little and then have 40 million workers see a surprise $1000 tax bill in April and then oops tens of millions of people who don't have the money just don't pay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
haveblue posted:My favorite part is how simplifying the tax code and shifting work away from individuals to the government is opposed by a powerful business lobby But enough about healthcare / education / taxes / etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
I just taught my economics class about the W-4 form and I told them that they can increase their paycheck amounts or they can send extra in and get it back as a refund. I grew up with a parent who had so many random jobs that they always had to pay in and it caused my parents a lot of stress. Due to seeing that as a kid, I never wanted to deal with that so my wife and I pay extra in every year. May be dumb but childhood memories affect adult actions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
FYI https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1649133133176946688
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
Wow, this one I didn't see coming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
Gonna have to start creating more embeds for others sites on here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:16
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Wow, this one I didn't see coming. rando blog is not SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:45
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:rando blog is not SCOTUS ...no, but it's a major media source very relevant to the thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:49
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:rando blog is not SCOTUS ...do you think that person thinks this is the official Twitter of the supreme court??
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
My favorite running gag is how SCOTUSBLOG would retweet people yelling at them like they were the actual Supreme Court. I will miss that greatly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
Breaking: SCOTUS stays Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling in full pending appeal. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/21/politics/supreme-court-abortion-pill-mifepristone
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Breaking: SCOTUS stays Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling in full pending appeal. I wonder how much arm twisting Roberts had to do to get them to issue this stay. The fact that they had to extend this by two days is not great. That tells me there was a lot of conversation behind closed doors that really should not have need. It was a pretty open and closed case of standing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Breaking: SCOTUS stays Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling in full pending appeal. Thomas and Alito would have put the ruling back into effect; Kav/ACB at least did not dissent in writing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I wonder how much arm twisting Roberts had to do to get them to issue this stay. The fact that they had to extend this by two days is not great. That tells me there was a lot of conversation behind closed doors that really should not have need. It was a pretty open and closed case of standing. Eh. The extra two days could easily have been to give Alito time to dissent in writing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Eh. The extra two days could easily have been to give Alito time to dissent in writing. since Alito issued that extension, I think that's likely
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 00:22
|
|
|
So I'm fairly new to the intricacies of this supreme court stuff; I've picked up a lot of things second hand from the more generally focused politics threads but I wanna know some of the nuances of the conservative judges (found out halfway through typing this that the OP has some relevant info, but it's also mostly out of date and the still active conservative justices it does cover are the ones I feel like my secondhand grasp on was solid). What I've got so far: Roberts: really into wanting to preserve the "legitimacy" of the court and so from time to time makes non-lovely calls because he doesn't Calvinball nearly as much as the others. Prefers a more "boiling the frog" approach to implementing lovely conservative agenda. Thomas and Alito: pretty much just rule what the conservative agenda would be no matter what. Gorsuch: Libertarian true believer meaning he has a bit of a weird (but not unwelcome) indigenous rights streak and other non-lovely rulings under his belt Kavanaugh: something about the media considering him a swing vote a la Roberts (a reputation which I've seen goons confused about), something about beer Barrett: I'm gonna be honest I don't think my mind fully registered her existence until I was looking the court up on wikipedia to make sure I spelled Gorsuch and Kavanaugh's names right
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:since Alito issued that extension, I think that's likely
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why would people think that SCOTUS would overturn Roe, but then allow nationwide abortion pills? You'd have to be dumb. Is that unreasonable for Roberts? At least with this particular attempt to ban the pills?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
In a sane world the case would have been thrown out on standing, but we can't allow that
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Is that unreasonable for Roberts? At least with this particular attempt to ban the pills?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Roberts doesn't have any power. Yeah basically all comes down to what Amy, Neil, and Beer want to do. sheri fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Apr 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Roberts doesn't have any power. He has a vote. The justices aren't a monolith, they have individual agendas, and I'm asking if reducing the question to "abortion" versus "no abortion" accurately reflects his (and for that matter, any of the other conservatives).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
raminasi posted:He has a vote. The justices aren't a monolith, they have individual agendas, and I'm asking if reducing the question to "abortion" versus "no abortion" accurately reflects his (and for that matter, any of the other conservatives). Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Apr 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
Roberts knows that bad precedent can gently caress up OTHER decisions that he wants to get through, so he's cautious when it comes to making completely batshit decisions. The other conservatives gradually have less and less of this discretionary intelligence until you get to Thomas and Alito who are just scorched earth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:Roberts knows that bad precedent can gently caress up OTHER decisions that he wants to get through, so he's cautious when it comes to making completely batshit decisions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why would people think that SCOTUS would overturn Roe, but then allow nationwide abortion pills? You'd have to be dumb. Because this ruling doesn't simply disallow abortion pills. Because of the lack of standing and the lack of evidence of harm caused by the pills produced, upholding the order would be saying that FDA and scientific process be damned, any random federal judge gets to make drug policy. Essentially, that the FDA would no longer have authority to approve or deny drugs, because any judge could just issue a ruling to override it for no reason. That's such an incredible overreach that I don't think that even Joe Biden would accept that. I don't think that the SC would like to open the door to having their power openly defied.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 01:52
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Because this ruling doesn't simply disallow abortion pills. Because of the lack of standing and the lack of evidence of harm caused by the pills produced, upholding the order would be saying that FDA and scientific process be damned, any random federal judge gets to make drug policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:You have more optimism than I do. I honestly don't think the conservatives give a poo poo, just like they didn't give a poo poo about the consequences when they overturned Roe to begin with. They even had Alito issue this extension! Like, how on the nose could they be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 02:12
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:You have more optimism than I do. I honestly don't think the conservatives give a poo poo, just like they didn't give a poo poo about the consequences when they overturned Roe to begin with. They even had Alito issue this extension! Like, how on the nose could they be? Alito issued the extension because it was an appeal from the Fifth Circuit, which is his responsibility - that’s also why he was the one who put the initial administrative stay in place, even though he ultimately wouldn’t have granted such a stay. And the extension was *bad* from the perspective of someone who wants to ban mifepristone because it extended the stay of the lower court orders, meaning that the pre-Kacsmaryk/5th Circuit status quo continued. Which is why Alito dissented in writing from leaving the stay in place (which, in turn, is probably why the extension existed in the first place.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 02:12
|
|
|
Alito's dissent is cringeworthy. Whining about criticism the court has received in response to other stay applications and then trying to throw that logic back at folks for this one. Embarrassing imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Alito oversees the 5th Circuit. Every justice is in charge of at least one Circuit. And there are 13 appellate courts for 9 SCOTUS judges. That math definitely adds up!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
jeeves posted:And there are 13 appellate courts for 9 SCOTUS judges. That math definitely adds up! No, the math just says that at least one justice handles more than one Circuit; that each justice covers at least one is a matter of not being silly with assignments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:No, the math just says that at least one justice handles more than one Circuit; that each justice covers at least one is a matter of not being silly with assignments. Seems like we should increase the court to 13, so as to be sure we're not overworking our poor justices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 05:00
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:No, the math just says that at least one justice handles more than one Circuit; that each justice covers at least one is a matter of not being silly with assignments. There’s also some logic to who covers what - justices who come off appellate courts typically cover the circuit they used to belong to, for example. (Hence Kav getting the 6th, Alito for the 3rd, Roberts for DC Cir, Barrett for the 7th, Sotomayor for the 2nd, Gorsuch for the 10th.). In fact, the only justices who don’t cover their former circuit are Kagan, who was never a judge before SCOTUS, and Thomas and Brown Jackson, who were both DC Circuit judges as well, but Roberts ain’t giving up the most important circuit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:...do you think that person thinks this is the official Twitter of the supreme court?? Bizarro Kanyon posted:My favorite running gag is how SCOTUSBLOG would retweet people yelling at them like they were the actual Supreme Court. Crows Turn Off posted:Why would people think that SCOTUS would overturn Roe, but then allow nationwide abortion pills? You'd have to be dumb. Jaxyon posted:Seems like we should increase the court to 13, so as to be sure we're not overworking our poor justices. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 20:32
|
|