I’m not sure a theatrical release is the best option. They might have been better off selling it to Netflix or some other streaming service; as much as I want to see the movie, I’m not sure I’d actually go to a theater to see it. (Not because of a lack of interest in the movie, but rather, it takes a lot more to get me into a movie theater today than it would have 5 years ago.)

Is this actually a bad thing? I don’t know enough about the process. How does beef tallow compare taste-wise to other oils? My first instinct was to think that would actually taste pretty good, but I have no idea.

When referring to him in the capacity of a president, using last name is pretty much the standard. It wasn’t “Joe”, it was “Biden”. It wasn’t “Barack”, it was “Obama”. It’d be weird to call him Donald.

That said, I’m sure it would rankle him greatly and I fully support it on those grounds alone.

As an American, I hope Canada just tells Trump to get fucked and gives him nothing. Make us suffer. Leave absolutely no room for argument that Trump’s tariffs are in any way beneficial. Come back to the table when we have a reasonable president and negotiate then.

I’d much rather someone who actually needs the money enough to pick up small change takes them rather than for them to just sit there. If someone’s desperate enough to fish coins out of a fountain for a few dollars, they can absolutely have them.

Well, I’m sold!

It’s time sensitive - she needs someone to fill this position right now. If it’s so time sensitive, she might be willing to pay more than she normally would to get someone to do so.

Sounds to me like she put her cards on the table and gave you a nice bargaining chip when it comes time to discuss compensation.

I mean, it’s not like it’s a serious question for which I need a specific answer. Folks have been replying with answers from various jurisdictions, which is great - all interesting!

It’s not taught to us (in the US), either; in my opinion, this is the sort of thing that should be covered in the last year of primary school. There’s so many general things you need to know to function in society as an adult that we’re just expected to learn on our own.

All of these sites load for me; looks like this is either localized, or out of date information.

You obviously know better than I do, so take this with a grain of salt, but I was curious, and a quick google search turned up this source, which says:

Let’s say you are a tax resident in Portugal, and your gross annual income for 2022 is €30,000. To calculate your income tax liability for the year, you would follow these steps:

Determine your tax bracket: Your €30,000 falls into the 35% tax bracket. Calculate the tax owed on the portion of your income in that bracket: The portion in the 35% bracket is €9,678 (€30,000 – €20,322). To calculate the tax owed on this portion, you would multiply it by the tax rate of 35%, which gives you €3,384.30. Calculate the tax owed on the portion of your income in the lower tax brackets: The portion of your income in the lower tax brackets is €20,322 (€30,000 – €9,678). To calculate the tax owed on this portion, you would add up the tax owed at each lower tax rate. That gives you:

€1,033.80 for the portion of your income in the 14.5% bracket €1,259.96 for the portion of your income in the 23% bracket €2,901.30 for the portion of your income in the 28.5% bracket

Adding these amounts together gives you a total of €5,195.06.

One of the benefits off of the top of my head, is that people wouldn’t be scared of their salary increasing just enough, to actually lower their clean income.

Why wouldn’t they? This isn’t how it works now, but people are still scared of it.

To be clear, the first three tax brackets are at $11600, $47150, and $100526 (for a single filer), at 10%, 12% and 22% respectively. If you make $58000, the first $11600 is taxed at 10%, the next $35550 is taxed at 12%, and the remaining $10850 is taxed at 22%. (This is the exact example the IRS gives.) If you go from making $47k (the top of which falls in the 12% bracket) to $48k (the top of which falls in the 22% bracket), you’re still making more money. That last $850 is just taxed at a higher rate.

I’d originally replied to your other comment with this, but I’m moving it here because it fits better.

I think it’s clear between the multiple comment chains we’re arguing in here that I disagree with your take, and I don’t think either of us are going to convince the other so I’m not going to try, but that said, I’m not disagreeing with you that there’s some accountability problems in USAID nor that there’s some corruption in the system. What I disagree with is your implied conclusion that the bad outweighs the good. I firmly believe that the same could be said about just about any government program, but we aren’t cancelling Medicare just because some people are getting payments who shouldn’t be, and we aren’t cancelling FEMA just because some funds might be going to people who don’t really need them.

Personally, I’d much rather my tax dollars go to a program which provides actual aid to people, even if some percentage of it is being siphoned off to other things, than going to fund bombs being dropped on brown people, or funding more subsidies for billionaires. USAID is under attack right now because Musk and Trump and co. go don’t like it. If these concerns were brought up under a different administration that wasn’t sewing propaganda supporting their government-dismantling, treasury-siphoning actions everywhere they could, I’d be a lot more receptive to actually considering their validity.

deleted by creator

It’s less than 1% of the military budget alone. It’s less than 0.0001% of the US’s annual expenditures.

Yeah, obviously we should have nationalized healthcare, but USAID is not what’s keeping that from being a reality. It’s insurance company lobbying, and propaganda against it, among other things.

So, which points from its analysis do you disagree with specifically?

I didn’t decide anything for anyone; I provided a link to an analysis. Just because you don’t like the conclusion, doesn’t mean it’s not true. 🤷

I don’t feel like this should be needed in this case but just in case anyone thinks this is an unbiased article…

Bias Summary: The article exhibits a strong bias against USAID, framing its actions predominantly as corrupt and ineffective, while dismissing counterarguments. Fallacies Summary: Utilizes selective outrage and anecdotal evidence to reinforce its narrative against USAID.

They had two wolves inside of them and the experience left them feeling weirdly aroused and it scared them a little.