GOTTA STAY FAI posted:

It's $325 for a single person with no dependents whose household income is just above the filing threshold, and it increases with your income. That's as low as it goes, but goddrat it gets bad quickly as you make more money.

I volunteer at a tax clinic for low income people and yeah, there are a shitton of people pissed as gently caress that they've been slammed with individual shared responsibility payments (the IRS doesn't want us calling it a "fee" or "penalty" even though it is literally an amount of money charged to you for not complying with the law). Things get really depressing when it's a married couple with lots of dependents and nobody in the house had insurance. They come in thinking they're getting a refund and walk out with a bill for twice what they thought they were getting back

Krispy Kareem posted:

They don't charge more than your refund amount though, right?

Krispy Kareem posted:

They don't charge more than your refund amount though, right?

StrangersInTheNight posted:

Like GOTTA STAY FAI said, uh, yeah they do. It's a fine. You get charged for not having insurance. It's pretty clear what they charge you. They warn everyone ahead of time.

It's amazing that so many people were all for the Massachusetts system of healthcare reform law, without understanding what it actually was.

Solice Kirsk posted:

If only there was a way to provide every citizen with healthcare by paying for it out of federal taxes. Oh well, that's obviously too crazy an idea to ever work.

GOTTA STAY FAI posted:

It's $325 for a single person with no dependents whose household income is just above the filing threshold, and it increases with your income. That's as low as it goes, but goddrat it gets bad quickly as you make more money.

GOTTA STAY FAI posted:

If your income is low enough, you may qualify for the Premium Tax Credit, which is pretty much the federal government ponying up for part of or all of your healthcare coverage. Tons of my clients qualified for it last year and maybe 1% of them knew it was a thing

GOTTA STAY FAI posted:

Sadly, it's the opposite. If you had your federal income tax withholding dead on for the year and neither owed nor overpaid, but didn't have insurance (and didn't qualify for an exemption), you'd be writing the IRS a check.

So many of my clients are totally unaware of this. I wish that every January, the government would start running ads on TV saying "YO CITIZENS YOU GOTTA HAVE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE NOW OK, TRY GOING TO HEALTHCARE.GOV OR WE'LL BEND YOU OVER A BARREL COME TAX TIME NEXT YEAR"

Chomp8645 posted:

Can you show me where this is? Because when I looked it up for myself the instructions on the IRS website seemed to tell me that my flat rate was $975. Maybe I was looking at the wrong thing but it seemed pretty straight forward.

Apologies for derailing but I'd really love to save that $650.

GOTTA STAY FAI posted:

https://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Individuals-and-Families/ACA-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Provision-Calculating-the-Payment

Get out your calculator

Henchman of Santa posted:

Deadspin posted an article about explaining Hitler to your kids, and Internet Atheist Man swooped in to make sure they did it properly. Public page.



Someone pointed out that Stalin was an atheist, so what's the point?



It went on longer but sadly got deleted before I could get more.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

GOTTA STAY FAI posted:

If your income is low enough, you may qualify for the Premium Tax Credit, which is pretty much the federal government ponying up for part of or all of your healthcare coverage. Tons of my clients qualified for it last year and maybe 1% of them knew it was a thing

Brawnfire posted:

1.) Kids don't know what they truly are, so don't transition them before puberty

Byzantine posted:

That...seems reasonable? Or no?

Brawnfire posted:

It's reasonable on its own. I would think it's the most effective time to begin transitioning, though, and legal adulthood is usually a bit on the late side to begin effectively, insofar as I'm aware.

How, then, do we both determine the seriousness of the person's self-identity, and give them the treatment needed to have the most effective chance at having the body they want to match their self-perception?

It's reasonable to say "You're too young to make this decision", but it's also sort of damning them to growing into an unwanted body which will never quite be what they're comfortable with.

Kicking the can down the road seems a bit... uncompassionate.

Lareine posted:

Maybe we should stop talking about this before it gets the thread closed again.

Solice Kirsk posted:

You have to be 18 to get a tattoo. I'd say that would be a reasonable age for someone to decide they were born with the wrong genitals and get mutilated to fit their head body image.

Crust First posted:

Non-medical transitioning (letting a kid wear the clothes they want) and androgen blocking meds (to delay puberty) both seem like fine things to do with no long term issues that I'm aware of prior to becoming 18.

Lareine posted:

Maybe we should stop talking about this before it gets the thread closed again.

Lottery of Babylon posted:

I’ll admit it: at heart, I really want to be libertarian about the issue of gay marriage. I truly want to believe the notion that, if two sodomites want to get wedded and bedded, the government should not be involved.

I concluded as much until the bureaucrats started telling me what I should think. I conjectured as much until the establishment media started insisting that there was only one way to “feel” about this issue. I conceived as much until the humanitarians started repeating that a “good citizen” only supported one political position.

As soon as the mass media started indoctrinating one point of view, I immediately adopted the opposite opinion. The liberal overlords have squirted and spurted out a rather obvious stream of propaganda to make sodomy more acceptable. And if the idealists begin to tell you that something is good, you can be certain that it will be morally reprehensible when it all comes out in the end. If the altruists say that something is a matter of civil rights, than you can be drat sure that it is going to be morally repugnant.

There is something genuinely disgusting about the ruling establishment’s heavy-handed and limp-wristed attempt to make homosexual activity seem normal. And I resent being socialized: I never really felt the least bit anti-gay until the government started telling me how awful and appalling it is to discriminate against sexual orientation. When the do-gooders say one thing, you can be drat certain that the reverse is actually true.

Whenever the privileged classes boast that culture is proceeding down a particular route, you want to be running – no, you want to be fleeing – in the opposite direction. You don’t even want to go anywhere near the on-ramp to that Hersey highway of progress. If you should ever hear that things are “improving,” then you want to be making a U-turn. No politician is more oppressive than a legislator who believes he is free of the “superstitions” of the past. No one is more tyrannical than a citizen who fancies himself a freethinker.

With the mass media diligently trying to tell American citizens that “homophobia” is really, really, really wrong – the act of hating gays becomes revenge against liberal indoctrination. Hating bugger boys has become an act of retaliation against humanitarian brainwashing. You always fight the establishment by attacking their altruistic causes. The best way of protesting the totalitarian democracy of America is to oppose anything egalitarian.

Not everyone deserves equality. If a depraved special-interest group has experienced discrimination throughout history, there must be a particularly good reason for that pattern of social distrust. There is an obvious explanation why homosexuals have been kept in the closet: their uncouth proclivities repulse every normal human being. Whenever the do-gooders instruct you to be more accepting, your instinctive disgust becomes a weapon against indoctrination. No matter how many golden marriage certificates you shower upon these whiners, their fecal stains will still be just as despicable. The world is already full of enough poo poo, without having it smeared all over your dick. Whenever you extend a helping hand, you only end-up contaminating yourself.

If the media would have just shut the hell up about those loathsome pansies, I would never have hated these sodomites in the first place. Truly, truly, with anal sex gaining pubic and public acceptance, the end times are indeed upon us – make that: rear-end times.

Brawnfire posted:

Yeah, that's seemingly a good idea since the word "mutilated" got trotted out pretty early on.

Solice Kirsk posted:

Just like tattoos (which are also self mutilation). Went ahead and edited it to disfigured.

dirksteadfast posted:

I didn't know Sean Connery had a social media account.

Lottery of Babylon posted:

I’m not going to lie to you: I’ve been known to slap a woman around. I am not proud of it – sometimes I just can’t resist putting woman in her place. Often the only way that woman can be brought to a recognition is to smack some sense into her.

Thumping a woman every now and then is going to release some rather primordial emotions in her. What she then feels toward the man who takes a swipe at her is going to be more intense, more animal, and more dangerous. Slapping a woman can destroy a relationship, but it can also unleash a gritty passion. And, with the right woman, it is worth taking that risk.

1. Hitting a woman will offer an insight into her personality that could not be captured by any other means. Transgressive acts produce transgressive insights. Giving a lady a dose of corporal correction yields a glimpse of the feminine mind that could be obtained no other way. Often doing something reprehensible will give an awareness that would be impossible to acquire without risking such social stigma. It is usually necessary to become a bit of a reprobate in order to understand the ultimate nature of reality.

2. Corporal punishment builds character. Just as hitting a child helps to strengthen personality; a righteous whack helps knock the liberalism out of a smug broad. A good right hook will tend to smack four years of liberal arts right out of her head. A slap across the mouth, from time to time, helps to deepen her personality – by bringing her back in contract with traditional feminine roles. Daily life was never intended to be without pain.

3. The expression on her face when she is given that first whack is absolutely priceless. Like a Zen mediation student getting a whack on the back from the master’s staff, that first slap makes a lie of all the liberal platitudes that government schools have pounded into her head. Coming to a physical awareness of the cruelty of life does have a way of brushing the clichés from the eyes.

4. The kind of women who thinks she is too special to be hit is not the kind of female you really want to be around. For thousands of years of human history, men have beaten their mates; non-violence is the aberration in the Western tradition. If women were hit by their mates for time immemorial, then modern damsels shouldn’t be treated any differently. Just because a girl now has a cell phone and a stylish haircut doesn’t mean that she is any better than her ancestors. Sexual violence has always been part of human heritage and will never disappear – so deal with it.

5. Women will assent to physical correction. I’m not going to say women enjoy being hit: they don’t. No one likes being hurt. Any gent who claims otherwise doesn’t know the first thing about females. She might resent the blow, but the woman will still accept a wallop from the right man. Although it is not exactly politically correct, there are actually times when a woman will assent to being smacked. What is more, the female knows exactly when she deserves a whack. The true lady realizes when a slap is warranted.

6. Men who do not use physical violence will be rigorously tested and regularly despised. Woe to the man who does not react when his gal is out of line. A woman will never respect a man who fails to knock her around when she breaks the rules. I’d rather that lover would come to hate me than to think I am not up to a little violence now and then. Women expect a man to put a bit of determination in his reprimand. Real men not only hit women, but a gentleman always knows just how much force is appropriate. Only a wimp bothers to argue with a woman; a true man uses his superior body mass to get his point across physically.

7. When you hit a woman, you immediately remove yourself from consideration as a suitable father for her children. When you raise a hand against her, she knows that you would not ever be a good dad, so she yields to your overriding objective of keeping the relationship childfree. A guy who beats women demonstrates that he is simply unsuitable to have around kids, so you won’t have to worry about any surprises with the home pregnancy test kit. A touch of physical violence makes the romance more primal. (Leave the diaper-changing to the pantywaists.)

8. Bruises are emblems of our encounter. Look, it is not like I hit a woman every day; it is not that I cause her any real bodily damage. I just sometimes feel the need to leave a marker of my passage across her fleshy territory, like a surveyor’s mark upon the expanse. Not a sign of ownership as much as visual notice that my hands have passed across her.

9. Female erotic fantasy often includes being hit. In public, women will talk and talk and not shut-up about a society in which gents and broads are equal. But in private, ladies never fantasize about such wimpy egalitarian men. Women are not aroused by pansy-assed males, but by a guy with a firm hand. The men that end-up between a woman’s legs are seldom non-violent. Female sexual fantasies will often involve a male figure who can dominate her; whether that dominance is sexually expressed will depend on the extent of her socialization into the feminist agenda.

10. Slapping a woman is an act of tenderness. Striking a soulmate is far more intimate than making love. Should you raise a bruise, she will look at you with mingled dislike and devotion; she will loathe you, but she will be loyal. She might well detest you, but she will remain dedicated. Beating a woman does not make a girlfriend obey every whim – quite the reverse – but smacking a lady makes her focus upon you (at least after the swelling subsides). Raising a hand forces attachment, not affection. A women who is regularly administered the belt almost never abandons her man.

A gracious woman receives her chastisement without complaint. A seductive dame doesn’t fuss when she is set right. A charming hostess does not remonstrate when she is chastened. She’ll flinch when you take her in your arms, but she will press herself harder against you. She’ll jump when your fingers brush the back of her neck, but she will incline her head in front of you.

11. When I lay a hand on a woman, we create a bond. Romance isn’t what you see in the movies. Although violence against women is not exactly socially accepted at this moment in history, such brutality does make carnal knowledge all that more in-depth. Beating a woman is a sort of pact, a sign of a fleshy covenant. Consider my punch as the signing of a contract.

12. Having your mark on her changes the sexual experience. Just as make-up sex after a knockdown argument is more satisfying, so screwing a woman you have just slapped is more emotionally fulfilling than the casual variety. Sex with a woman you have hit carries deeper meaning. Copulation isn’t all caresses and kisses; if fornication doesn’t leave blemishes, you aren’t doing your adultery right. The most intense orgasms always leave most lingering bruises.

I make no secret of my proclivities; I do not hide my history of violence toward women. If a lady comes to dislike my touch, then she is always free to leave. I am not some Puerto Rican kidnapper with an assortment of teenagers chained in the basement; I take no prisoners. Feminists would have you believe that dames are as strong as any man – except in one area – although broads at said to be as powerful as any male, these bitches just can’t seem to open the front door when subjected to unwanted chastisement. If a female doesn’t like being nudged, she can always leave. If a woman stays with me, she knows what is coming to her.

quote:

7. When you hit a woman, you immediately remove yourself from consideration as a suitable father for her children. When you raise a hand against her, she knows that you would not ever be a good dad, so she yields to your overriding objective of keeping the relationship childfree. A guy who beats women demonstrates that he is simply unsuitable to have around kids, so you won’t have to worry about any surprises with the home pregnancy test kit. A touch of physical violence makes the romance more primal. (Leave the diaper-changing to the pantywaists.)

Madkal posted:

Right. You only hit a woman so you can demonstrate that you wouldn't be a good father.

china bot posted:

chitoryu12 posted:

I'd show Sean Connery's post to my girlfriend to laugh at, but she comes from a physically abusive household and would probably suffer some kind of flashback at seeing anyone argue that beating women is "necessary."