It's super not obvious to me when the frame happens.
What's the time mark for the frame?
DahGangalang
joined 2 years ago
This makes me irrationally mad
(It's obv supposed to be spelt gnarly)
No cap fr, big yikes fam
Wait, you're saying you can get the same "nutrition to cost" value out of wet beans? I assumed you meant dry beans (and this would need to soak and actually cook them).
This might just be location specific, but wet beans are much more expensive (in terms of calories per dollar) compared to ramen every where I've seen (lived in South West and Mid Atlantic of US).
Are you saying that's not the case where you're at?
Both?
National Security?
Bro, you're thinking too small - this affects the security of all mankind on Earth. With falling yields from Ukraine and other conflict growing around the world, I except agricultural output to dip DRASTICALLY in the coming years. This means it will more than likely fall to the Deer dominated production area to take up the slack and feed humanity.
I wish US regulators would see the importance of agriculture and would stop letting multi-billion dollar companies bully the actual producers of our food chain.
On one hand: fair. If you're not versed in elements of tax law this bit of data can seem arcane.
On the other: this is a matter of policy - not one of research. The definitive answer can be found with relative ease via a Google search. Here's a link to a Social Security Administration page on the topic: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html
By the math set out at the above link, one can calculate that, at a maximum income of $168,600 and a SS Contribution rate of 6.2%, the most any individual would contribute to social security in a year would be $10,453.20.
$10,453.20 would represent 0.052266% of the income of someone making $20 millions per year. Even doubling that amount (as some conservatives do) to count the employer's contributions to Social Security would leave you with just over 0.1% of net income.
So yeah, even if Social Security isn't going bankrupt, it's an anemic system that barely provides livable circumstances for those who depend on it. Raising or removing that "max income for contributions" limit would go a long way to seeing the system be able to actually support people who need it while only burdening those most able to bear the burden.
Ninjaedit: grammar
I want to believe. Can you provide sources for that claim?
Still better than paying taxes
Naw, I just wanna go live in the woods, ya know, like the Libertarians.
I'm a cheap bastard.
Free is free
The more and more I read a out lawsuits of our time, the more and more I feel this (though it's 50/50 whether they end up on the right side of the thing)