A lot of people are talking about the low asset limit, but a relatively new account type gets ignored by that limit. An ABLE account. It’s not perfect and asset limits are way too low, but this type of account greatly helps people with disabilities save/invest up to $100k without counting against the limit. It is restricted to specific uses, but it’s very broad and pretty much anything but alcohol and gambling can be spent on from it.
Clinton got 95% of the donations made. That is not anywhere close to 95% of employees. She got $1.9M and there are close to 3 million federal employees.
I apparently didn't clearly convey my message. He'd have to use some twisted logic to blame the banning of Trump from twitter on the influence from government agencies and not on Twitter. That is what the person I was responding to was saying. I don't disagree with anything you said, nor do I think my original statement does in the context of the comment I replied to.
Trump was the head of the government agencies at the time he was banned from Twitter. You're going to have to go down some strange rabbit holes to find the logic to work that out. It's perfectly reasonable that the people running Twitter didn't agree with Trump's politics and picked a reason to ban him.
This blending rate would just be subsidizing the have's at the expense of the have nots. It would be a market advantage to existing low rate holders going into the next 2 decades.
It's owed to these entities at that rate for a specific amount of time. Swapping homes should then mean that the new home is on a payment timeline of whatever the remaining term is, not reset to 30 years. You'd also need to have not increased the loan amount for the math to work out, so either you'd need to sell the old home for more than what the new one costs, or come up with the difference in cash. On top of that, the original loan is backed with the old home as collateral, so the new home would also need to be worth at least as much as the remaining balance.
That'd probably spawn a class of workers that are happy making a living off of trying out at places. Aside from that, why would someone that has a job quit their job for a company that won't commit to hiring them. The worker can already quit the new job if they don't like it early on. This only benefits companies.
I guess we read that completely differently. I don't see anything about an unstructured interview in his comment. He points out that he's good at interviewing by just talking to them. I read that as opposed to making them jump through hoops doing leetcode or exercises.
I’m sure some people would accept being paid to try out without the company having any commitment to hiring, but those are probably not the people you’d actually want to hire. If a company can’t commit to hiring then why would a confident professional bother with the company? A probationary period seems like a reasonable compromise where the company commits to the expense of onboarding while still having an escape if it goes poorly.
He gave the reasons. He took a deal for a fine, loss of his law license for 5 years, and not pursuing lawyer fees as his punishment for what he did. In exchange for that, he would be immune from being prosecuted any further on that matter. It's quite plain in the article you linked.
You're commenting on an article that puts the average wage for a teacher at 69k. That isn't a poor person unless you're redefining poor to be more than half the country. Are some paid lower, certainly. But on average, their wages aren't actually that bad.
Just looked up my local California district, it's 185 contracted days. The districts near me seem to range from low 180s to 190. They also get 5 days they can call out for personal reasons(I don't think they roll over), and a handful of sick days that do roll over. If they work summer school, they get paid extra. 30 extra work days is 6 weeks, which most people would say is significantly more and love to have off.
You're hallucinating a conversation with me. Someone brought up asset limits as a problem. I provided contrary information, and now you're arguing with yourself about something else. You are saying something, I comment that I wasn't suggesting what you're saying, and now you're doubling down and making up what you're responding too. You're obviously passionate about it, but maybe you should take a break from this thread. The way people get treated by some states is appalling and I'm sorry you and others have trouble receiving the help they should be getting.
I hired an electric company to put in a car charger. In order to participate in the EV pricing program it needed a 2nd meter, which needed a permit. The actual installation was a few hours. The permitting process went back and forth between city inspectors starting in September and didn’t get approved late January. The company didn’t fight anything, always did what they recommended and it still kept coming back with more “issues” and adjustments. The company said they’d never take a charger install job again in the city. It was ridiculous.
If you think the above poster's statement doesn't adequately justify that it isn't fraud, then you should respond to him. My statement simply stated that he didn't express support one way or the other for fees, and that even if the law is passed it wouldn't do what the parent wanted.
I feel like you misread his explanation of why it's not fraud as an endorsement for how things work. He doesn't seem to imply support anywhere in his statement.
Aside from that, this law would not eliminate the need to do math. The sales tax would still be added. Despite "the price you see is the price you pay" slogan, it excludes certain government taxes and shipping fees. That exclusion includes sales tax.
If you have complex medical issues, you may not find much better results from doctors. It actually may be even more infuriating to be told you medical issues are just in your head.
Replacing flossing with diligent tooth picking is a lot different than not flossing. Most people don’t use a tooth pick or floss. If you don’t do either, you’ll probably show improvement from the act of caring to clean your teeth.
If the landlord is wanting something that benefits them and conveys that to the tenets then it’s reasonable for the tenant to communicate their concerns and what would help the landlord get what they want.