As a cyclist myself, I've talked to many a person around here with the opinion that we belong on the sidewalk and if they every catch a cyclist on the road, they make it a point to barely miss hitting us or not miss at all. I really don't understand it. You don't go derbying other cars on the road, or motorcyclists. What is the beef with pedal cycling that you feel the need & desire to run us off the road, hit & injure, or worse kill us?
Anyway, not sure how minimum wage evolved into this, but there's my input on one of the reasons why cyclists don't cycle to work.
I’ve never heard anyone say they try not to miss, but it’s come up in threads before and I have heard the near miss comments before. I don’t think anyone intentionally hits a biker. I think that’s wrong, but I think there is equal blame and responsibility. Why do drivers get so annoyed at cyclists? I’m guessing because they are impeding traffic and just not using common sense and acting like they own the road. I see it all the time. There’s about a mile of stretch of road by my house before I get to the freeway that this is not uncommon. Although no bike lane, there is plenty of room to ride on the shoulder and allow cars to pass. Why they don’t and chose to ride in the middle of the road is beyond me. Personally I would just ride my bike through the residential streets nearby. I mentioned that last time this topic came up and was told by several that they have as much right to be there as a car. While I agree, there’s also a responsibility to respect cars and do your best not to impede traffic when possible. It’s when they chose not to, or ride side by side that drivers get pissed off. Not saying they should clip bikers, just there’s a shared responsibility.
Cyclists don't impede traffic. They are traffic. They own the road just as any other vehicle would. The weight of responsibility is on the motorist to respect the cyclist as they are in the position to create much more damage.
I don’t agree with part of that. Yes, they own the road just as much, but they still impede traffic. They aren’t “the traffic.” Just like any other car, they need to go with the flow, just because you’re in front doesn’t make that the flow. I can’t drive my car 25 mph in a 45 zone, you can get tickets for that. There are rules and responsibilities for being on the road. I think drivers need to respect bikers, but bikers also need to respect drivers. And that second part is rarely said and often ignored. I don’t try to create near misses and hit bikers. But all I’d ask is bikers do what they can to respect cars in return. The road I was using as an example is very wide. Wide enough to easily park cars on the side, but parking there is illegal. Why a biker would not ride close to the side i just don’t understand. I understand riding on the shoulder can be dangerous, but this isn’t even a shoulder, it’s 5 feet of road that isn’t used. But it isn’t uncommon to see a biker riding in the middle slowing down a line of 10 cars behind him. It’s a bust street, a main road in a residential area. So being stuck behind a biker, impeding traffic, going 10 mph for 2 miles is very annoying. And it happens a lot.
We had this exact same argument a few months moths ago. Not that that necessarily should stop us; we do it all the time on the gun thread.
It’s absolutey not true that it’s rarely said that cyclists have to respect drivers. It’s said all the time. If some cyclists don’t obey the rules of the road, they’re in the wrong, just like drivers who don’t obey the rules of the road. It seems like the expectations for cyclists to obey the rules are much higher than for drivers.
If cyclists are using the middle of a specific road, rather than the right hand side, there’s probably something wrong with that side of the road that you, as a driver, aren’t aware of. It could be anything from a lot of debris to badly placed or fitting storm drains that cause a hazard, but I’m willing to bet it’s somerhing.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Who determined $15 was a living wage anyways. How come no one expects the government to tax us less leaving us more disposable income.
How come no one expects government to provide housing, food, education and health care; leaving us more disposable income?
Because a lot of people prefer the ability to choose where to live, the food they eat, the type of education their children get, and where they receive health care...
You don't have that luxury now. Do you live in a penthouse in manhattan? Eat surf & turf every night? Go to Harvard? Get treated at Mayo Clinic? No you don't.
A lot people are having to choose between whether they can pay rent, afford groceries, pay their student loans or afford treatment they need.
Couldn’t pay me enough to live in Manhattan, but yes, I get to live where I want to live and pretty much eat whatever I want whenever I want it, and got to go to my college of choice, but Healthcare is fucked. It is also my choice whether or not to work 40 hours a week to be able to afford those luxuries. If I did not work, I would not expect them.
Aaaahhh... So your just another one of those people who want all the benefits of living in a functioning society without having to contribute. Why didn't you just say so?
What makes you think I do not want to contribute to society? You have a weird way of drawing conclusions...
Who determined $15 was a living wage anyways. How come no one expects the government to tax us less leaving us more disposable income.
How come no one expects government to provide housing, food, education and health care; leaving us more disposable income?
Ummmm because “the government” doesn’t have the means to do that unless they take it from other people.
Mostly i I disagree with the “expect” portion of this. I’m ok with moving closer to being able to do all of this...but “expecting” the government to provide it for you is basically expecting others to pay for you.
Who determined $15 was a living wage anyways. How come no one expects the government to tax us less leaving us more disposable income.
How come no one expects government to provide housing, food, education and health care; leaving us more disposable income?
Ummmm because “the government” doesn’t have the means to do that unless they take it from other people.
Mostly i I disagree with the “expect” portion of this. I’m ok with moving closer to being able to do all of this...but “expecting” the government to provide it for you is basically expecting others to pay for you.
When thetrichest 1 percent in the United States own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, who is stealing from who?
Capitalism in America is systematic structured theft, designed to keep the poor poor and make the rich richer.
Can someone explain to me why 600,000 tax payers can deduct $10BB in alimony from their tax returns? Why are the rest of us subsidizing their failed marriages? I wonder what Team Trump Treason deducts in this regard? Oh wait, he hasn’t released his tax returns.
Who determined $15 was a living wage anyways. How come no one expects the government to tax us less leaving us more disposable income.
How come no one expects government to provide housing, food, education and health care; leaving us more disposable income?
Ummmm because “the government” doesn’t have the means to do that unless they take it from other people.
Mostly i I disagree with the “expect” portion of this. I’m ok with moving closer to being able to do all of this...but “expecting” the government to provide it for you is basically expecting others to pay for you.
When thetrichest 1 percent in the United States own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, who is stealing from who?
Capitalism in America is systematic structured theft, designed to keep the poor poor and make the rich richer.
Yep, exactly. As I call it (and mentioned before), it's a "socialist program for the wealthy."
Can someone explain to me why 600,000 tax payers can deduct $10BB in alimony from their tax returns? Why are the rest of us subsidizing their failed marriages? I wonder what Team Trump Treason deducts in this regard? Oh wait, he hasn’t released his tax returns.
How do you figure you are subsidizing failed marriage? The person receiving spousal support (alimony is an outdated term) pays tax on their spousal support. So why should the person who has as much as 50% deducted for spousal spousal have to pay tax on that 50% when the person receives spousal support is also paying tax??
Can someone explain to me why 600,000 tax payers can deduct $10BB in alimony from their tax returns? Why are the rest of us subsidizing their failed marriages? I wonder what Team Trump Treason deducts in this regard? Oh wait, he hasn’t released his tax returns.
How do you figure you are subsidizing failed marriage? The person receiving spousal support (alimony is an outdated term) pays tax on their spousal support. So why should the person who has as much as 50% deducted for spousal spousal have to pay tax on that 50% when the person receives spousal support is also paying tax??
Can someone explain to me why 600,000 tax payers can deduct $10BB in alimony from their tax returns? Why are the rest of us subsidizing their failed marriages? I wonder what Team Trump Treason deducts in this regard? Oh wait, he hasn’t released his tax returns.
How do you figure you are subsidizing failed marriage? The person receiving spousal support (alimony is an outdated term) pays tax on their spousal support. So why should the person who has as much as 50% deducted for spousal spousal have to pay tax on that 50% when the person receives spousal support is also paying tax??
Why should they get to write it off or deduct it? I’m not asking them to pay taxes on it, just asking why it should lower their tax liability. And yea, why should the rest of us pick that up through deficits or reduced services due to decreased tax revenue? Why can’t I get a tax deduction for giving money to a friend? Why is an ex-spouse is eligible?
Can someone explain to me why 600,000 tax payers can deduct $10BB in alimony from their tax returns? Why are the rest of us subsidizing their failed marriages? I wonder what Team Trump Treason deducts in this regard? Oh wait, he hasn’t released his tax returns.
How do you figure you are subsidizing failed marriage? The person receiving spousal support (alimony is an outdated term) pays tax on their spousal support. So why should the person who has as much as 50% deducted for spousal spousal have to pay tax on that 50% when the person receives spousal support is also paying tax??
Yeah, you're right. Not allowing people to deduct alimony payments would basically result in double-dipping. It would be like making people pay tax when they buy gift cards, basically.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Can someone explain to me why 600,000 tax payers can deduct $10BB in alimony from their tax returns? Why are the rest of us subsidizing their failed marriages? I wonder what Team Trump Treason deducts in this regard? Oh wait, he hasn’t released his tax returns.
How do you figure you are subsidizing failed marriage? The person receiving spousal support (alimony is an outdated term) pays tax on their spousal support. So why should the person who has as much as 50% deducted for spousal spousal have to pay tax on that 50% when the person receives spousal support is also paying tax??
Yeah, you're right. Not allowing people to deduct alimony payments would basically result in double-dipping. It would be like making people pay tax when they buy gift cards, basically.
I know that's how it works in Canada. Spousal Support is very fair and gender neutral in Canada. This is definitely something the law is doing right. Just like income is shared, so is the tax burden...
Maybe it works different in the US. In Canada Divorce laws are federal...
Alimony or spousal support is tax deductible but child support is not. I'm just wondering why its a deduction?
I do know not know how child support works in Canada. I only know of spousal support be=cause I'm separated. Does the payer of child support get a tax deduction? If so then the parent receiving should also pay tax to sort of balance the ledger.
Maybe it works different in the US. In Canada Divorce laws are federal...
Alimony or spousal support is tax deductible but child support is not. I'm just wondering why its a deduction?
Isn't it just because it's a hardship to have to pay taxes on money you're giving away to another person to spend and pay taxes on, aside from the double-dipping factor. I mean, I admit I'm a pretty big tax law dummy, but I think it goes: person pays income tax on all income, then gives some of that income to another person, and therefore deducts in order to recover at least some of those income taxes because it's really not income for him or her at all at the end of the day, but for their ex-spouse instead. And the ex-spouse turns around and pays tax on that income, making up for the initial deductions .... Right? I think it's not the same for child support because, well, that's money going to his or her kids, who are dependents, while ex-spouses are generally not .... I would imagine that the person paying child support does get to include that under the dependents section though.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Maybe it works different in the US. In Canada Divorce laws are federal...
Alimony or spousal support is tax deductible but child support is not. I'm just wondering why its a deduction?
Alimony is a deduction for the payor and income for the payee...it's meant to be a transfer of income and, therefore, the tax burden follows the income
Child support is not deductible by the payor because it is to represent payment for personal expenses of the child that are not normally deductible. Plus...the payor generally gets a tax exemption (prior to 2018) and/or tax credits for the dependent.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Maybe it works different in the US. In Canada Divorce laws are federal...
Alimony or spousal support is tax deductible but child support is not. I'm just wondering why its a deduction?
Isn't it just because it's a hardship to have to pay taxes on money you're giving away to another person to spend and pay taxes on, aside from the double-dipping factor. I mean, I admit I'm a pretty big tax law dummy, but I think it goes: person pays income tax on all income, then gives some of that income to another person, and therefore deducts in order to recover at least some of those income taxes because it's really not income for him or her at all at the end of the day, but for their ex-spouse instead. And the ex-spouse turns around and pays tax on that income, making up for the initial deductions .... Right? I think it's not the same for child support because, well, that's money going to his or her kids, who are dependents, while ex-spouses are generally not .... I would imagine that the person paying child support does get to include that under the dependents section though.
There are several ways to pay spousal support in Canada. The couple that is separating can come to an agreement on their own and the arrangements remain off the books (the person paying support would pay all taxes, in exchange for low spousal support, the other way I'm familiar is go through a lawyer and spousal support payer gets the tax deduction and person pays taxes ... once lawyers are involved the person paying spousal support payments usually increase. As for child support, that is a whole different area and you need a lawyer with good math skills to figure. In all fairness, from what I can tell Canada has good divorce laws. The problem for some is collecting.
Okay, I was really just talking about actually filing your taxes, not the process of coming to a divorce agreement.
I imagine you just file your taxes the same way, except their are boxes for spousal support and child support...
Kay, what I mean is, I was just talking about exactly what I posted above. I.e. why one deducts alimony while filing their taxes ..... Not how one arrives at the point where they have to do so.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Okay, I was really just talking about actually filing your taxes, not the process of coming to a divorce agreement.
I imagine you just file your taxes the same way, except their are boxes for spousal support and child support...
Kay, what I mean is, I was just talking about exactly what I posted above. I.e. why one deducts alimony while filing their taxes ..... Not how one arrives at the point where they have to do so.
Maybe it works different in the US. In Canada Divorce laws are federal...
Alimony or spousal support is tax deductible but child support is not. I'm just wondering why its a deduction?
Alimony is a deduction for the payor and income for the payee...it's meant to be a transfer of income and, therefore, the tax burden follows the income
Child support is not deductible by the payor because it is to represent payment for personal expenses of the child that are not normally deductible. Plus...the payor generally gets a tax exemption (prior to 2018) and/or tax credits for the dependent.
Who determined $15 was a living wage anyways. How come no one expects the government to tax us less leaving us more disposable income.
How come no one expects government to provide housing, food, education and health care; leaving us more disposable income?
Ummmm because “the government” doesn’t have the means to do that unless they take it from other people.
Mostly i I disagree with the “expect” portion of this. I’m ok with moving closer to being able to do all of this...but “expecting” the government to provide it for you is basically expecting others to pay for you.
How is that different from anything else it perceives to provide?
Minimum wage has gone up here in Alberta.. I think its close to $15/hr. I haven't even noticed anything get more expensive. I'm sure it has but I'm not really a big "consumer". I generally despise shopping so it hasn't effected me one bit. Maybe dinners out have risen slightly but I couldn't tell you for sure.
Giving people a living wage is step one. Guaranteed income for all is step 2. Enough with all this Republican/Conservative nonsense on how it will ruin the economy. Only a half-wit could really argue these points, unless they are paid by a right wing think tank
The minimum wage thing is a little fucked up. In Ontario, it is 14/hour ... no problem with that, except, a report was released that in my area 14/hour is considered a living wage. How the fuck is 14 a living wage in Toronto? I think the provinces need to allow large cities to decide minimum wage.
Comments
I can’t drive my car 25 mph in a 45 zone, you can get tickets for that. There are rules and responsibilities for being on the road. I think drivers need to respect bikers, but bikers also need to respect drivers. And that second part is rarely said and often ignored.
I don’t try to create near misses and hit bikers. But all I’d ask is bikers do what they can to respect cars in return. The road I was using as an example is very wide. Wide enough to easily park cars on the side, but parking there is illegal. Why a biker would not ride close to the side i just don’t understand. I understand riding on the shoulder can be dangerous, but this isn’t even a shoulder, it’s 5 feet of road that isn’t used. But it isn’t uncommon to see a biker riding in the middle slowing down a line of 10 cars behind him. It’s a bust street, a main road in a residential area. So being stuck behind a biker, impeding traffic, going 10 mph for 2 miles is very annoying. And it happens a lot.
It’s absolutey not true that it’s rarely said that cyclists have to respect drivers. It’s said all the time. If some cyclists don’t obey the rules of the road, they’re in the wrong, just like drivers who don’t obey the rules of the road. It seems like the expectations for cyclists to obey the rules are much higher than for drivers.
If cyclists are using the middle of a specific road, rather than the right hand side, there’s probably something wrong with that side of the road that you, as a driver, aren’t aware of. It could be anything from a lot of debris to badly placed or fitting storm drains that cause a hazard, but I’m willing to bet it’s somerhing.
Mostly i I disagree with the “expect” portion of this. I’m ok with moving closer to being able to do all of this...but “expecting” the government to provide it for you is basically expecting others to pay for you.
Capitalism in America is systematic structured theft, designed to keep the poor poor and make the rich richer.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
At least thats how it works in Canada...
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Child support is not deductible by the payor because it is to represent payment for personal expenses of the child that are not normally deductible. Plus...the payor generally gets a tax exemption (prior to 2018) and/or tax credits for the dependent.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana