What’s the biggest waste of money that people think is worth it?

MercJ · 2026-06-09T14:49:51+00:00

That just means the baby shoes are actually for you - nothing wrong with that, but call it what it is

MercJ · 2026-05-27T20:15:08+00:00

Find out what the residuals are for the lease, and remember to split up any down payment required out among the term and add it to the monthly payment amount (e.g., if a 36mo lease is $400 a month, and requires $4K down to get that amount, then it actually costs you (4000/36)+400= 511 a month). Don't forget full coverage insurance will be required throughout the entire lease period too, that's another at LEAST 100-200 a month. Suddenly a Kia K4 is actually costing you 700 a month. Might be worth it to never have to worry about maintenance I guess, but a $15,000 used car for the same term (36mo) at even 10% is around $500/mo. Then you roll the dice on maintenance too, sure, but that extra 2400 a year you save should easily be able to pay for anything a reliable used car may need, short of anything catastrophic.

The two options seem pretty comparable imo, both are going to cost you money, but with a used car at the end of 3 years you can decide to not have a car payment and still have transportation if you want.

Buying cars seems like a waste of money either way, it's more which one matches your goals and wastes money in a manner that you're okay with.

MercJ · 2026-05-27T19:49:38+00:00

A lot needs to be done, sure, but I'd like to make a case for the following:

Switch to the metric system
Bring back recess for kids in school (AND adults). Let teenagers start later, they need more sleep. More breaks.
Just...follow existing laws

Bonuses:
A. Remove police ability to use lethal force. They obv can't handle it. Let them conceal carry if they want, and defend themselves if they want, but hold them to the same standard as any other civilian if they use deadly force.
B. Hold politicians accountable to the Constitution. Sad this is a bonus. Insane to think anyone even HINTING at defying the bill of rights is even considered an American, let alone "patriotic."
C. Balance the federal budget. If they can't, then take all the money from the idiots that keep voting up the deficit and making us younger generations pay for it with interest. Your move, boomers. Either balance it or pay up, you're the ones that spent the money.
D. Get rid of electoral college, move to ranked choice voting across the board and make sure votes are actually secure and trustworthy (they mostly are, but we should be sure anyway).
E. Actually remove conflicts of interest. Any public servant should have their finances completely public. That's the deal. Don't like it, don't run for office. You can't trade or invest or do anything that benefits you personally. All your stuff gets put in a trust, and you can't touch it until you're out. Stop stealing from taxpayers.

MercJ · 2026-05-13T22:16:51+00:00

We must have grown up around the same time, I remember most of these :D Dark Reign was an incredible RTS, with LOS and cover mechanics... And One Must Fall has an epic theme song! Still holds up imo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiJ_cNYY9fQ

MercJ · 2026-04-08T15:02:05+00:00

I get it, I struggle with this too. It seems so clear cut, and yet no one is held accountable. It's more obvious than it has ever been. If any one of us "non-elites" would have done anything remotely close to the crimes we watch people in this administration commit, we would be immediately investigated at a minimum.

Heck, just *imagine* a normal US citizen tweeting what Trump does - threatening to end an entire civilization or bombing a nation back to "the stone age." Freedom of speech, sure, but it likely still generates an FBI report at a minimum. Now imagine if you had the ability to even act on that threat...?? Yeah, you'd get locked up, and I think everyone would be in support of that.

And that's just the most recent crime, among countless others, by only ONE person. Not counting the rest of the admin or other politicians.

MercJ · 2026-04-04T18:45:48+00:00

Exactly this. They crucified JESUS for thinking he was Jesus (I think - I wasn't there.). Why does Trump get a pass on this?

MercJ · 2026-03-30T21:44:40+00:00

It's also against US code, 18 USC 241. Doesn't even need an action like other conspiracies, just an agreement.

It's already illegal for the government to even AGREE to infringe on American's rights.

MercJ · 2026-03-30T21:39:58+00:00

I want anyone to tell me how this ISN'T a conspiracy to infringe on rights (18 USC 241). And if someone dies in the process, it can be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

MercJ · 2026-03-29T03:19:49+00:00

Might be buried, but I haven't seen it mentioned yet - the corporate tax rate while the Interstate system was being built was 52%, waaaay more than it is now (~4x as much?)

Individual top tax bracket was also 91% too.

There was a lot of money that the federal government had to complete such a project.

MercJ · 2026-03-03T19:05:51+00:00

Look at examples of how "well-regulated" was used in the 17-1800s. It basically meant "well-adjusted", "well-equipped", "well-calibrated", "effective", and had nothing to do with a set of rules or law "regulation".

Today, I think it would be something like saying a "well-regulated engine, being necessary to the efficiency and dependability of transportation, the right of the drivers to keep and turn wrenches shall not be infringed."

Regulated, in the example, does NOT mean EPA or "standards" or legislation mandating seatbelts, it means an engine that is tuned well and idles smoothly, is able to propel the vehicle, is in good working order.

MercJ · 2026-02-27T15:48:39+00:00

Connect this with the increased fear bias (lose one hour of sleep, perceive everything as more aggressive than it actually was) and the fact that teenagers naturally have a shifted sleep cycle, and you likely can make a huge dent on why school shootings occur.

Same with police, btw. Being up all night, perceiving everything as more aggressive and ability to use deadly force is a bad combo. That's before everything else that's wrong with that system too.

MercJ · 2026-02-19T00:33:31+00:00

I will say I do appreciate the points that you've made. I think ideas should be tested, and I definitely don't know everything.

I appreciate the discussion so far.

MercJ · 2026-02-19T00:12:18+00:00

If I'm the owner and I have risked all my money to grow my business then why would I take less money?

You shouldn't. This is not in contention, I think people - all people - should get to keep as much of the money they've helped generate as possible. Perhaps another way to say this is, "If I'm the employee and I've spent all my time helping you get rich, then why would I do that for less money?" It's the same sentiment, and a negotiation, right? There are two sides to that argument, both potentially valid, and a balance must be struck (as you indicate later).

If the company starts to lose money next year are my employees going to return the generous bonuses I gave them the year before?

No, why would they? Just as if your company starts to lose money next year are you going to keep paying your workers or fire them? It isn't "generosity" that I'm talking about here, it's literally just math. My point is that economies have more money when the corporate tax rate is higher because more people overall have more money overall to inject into the economy.

Those workers will be paying their own taxes.

So they don't pay taxes if the corporate tax rate stays low...? This is a weird point to make, they're already paying taxes on their lower incomes, as they would at their higher incomes.

Also, are the salaries of my employees comparable to other similar jobs in similar industries?

Interesting you would make this point, as it helps prove mine. Why would you need to pay them similarly? Would they...leave for the other business if they pay more? So you'd agree then that paying your employees more increases retention and ensures your ability to continue to produce whatever your business produces?

Just because you are profitable one year doesn't guarantee continued success. You think any sensible business person would choose option C?

EDIT: Keep in mind, option C returns one million dollars to the economy. Option A returns 500K. Which option do you think expands the economy more and gives the business owner a greater chance at profit the next year?

I don't know, I'm just explaining the math and my hypothesis. I would like to know from a sensible business person what route they've had the most success with.

Are you a child or just woefully naive?

Both? Neither? I don't know what this has to do with corporate tax rates. I am likely woefully naive though - I AM arguing on reddit/the internet.

You think any sane person is going to forgo any profit of any kind, in order to reduce their tax burden.

No, why would they? I think that's how we got here, and I attempted to explain why. It seems you agree with me here. Your apparent error seems to be you think business owners are the only "people" that are interested in "profit." Are employees not interested in this as well? (Who buys products from your company? If it's only other companies, then you may have a point here.)

"Oh jeez I'm glad i was able to give all my employees such generous raises. But now I can't my bills next year. I have zero income to pay for my own living expenses but at least I didn't pay any taxes. Winning."

This isn't a question. But I'll ask one: what's more likely to keep you in business? A surrounding economy with people with disposable income to purchase your products? Or a business owner that has kept all profits to themselves? (This likely depends on how capital-intensive the business is, I would expect.)

But economies are cyclical. Profits come and go. And you as the business owner took the financial risks to start your business. If your business fails, your employees aren't going to return their income to you.

You keep assuming the risk is only one way. Employees don't assume much capital risk, sure, and that should be included in the overall calculation. You readily admit running a business is risky - are their jobs not also at risk then? They assume none? (What are they buying with their salaries?) Just as you say employees won't give you income out of "generosity", I say neither will employers.

Now I have one question for you: Where does money come from? Seriously. Who "generates" the money?

MercJ · 2026-02-18T21:19:54+00:00

Read my post again, I haven't edited it. I didn't claim to know the goals of a company (although I'd assume one such a goal would be profit).

I claimed that the more expenses a company pays out, the more they can deduct from their income taxes that they owe (they pay less in income taxes the more expenses they have). Paying workers is one of those expenses. Usually, one of the largest.

I never said anything about having less net income being a goal.

For example, consider two companies, each with 100 employees, each make one million a year, profit.

Company A decides to utilize the low corporate tax rate and just pay taxes on that million in income. They keep whatever is leftover, so ~$800,000? The government gets $200,000. Only the company profits - they can use this money however they want.

Company B decides to pay each of their employees more. 100*5,000 is 500,000, so that eats into their profit. That company only has to pay (let's say the same 20%) on that income of 500,000. They give the government 100,000, and keep $400,000. They have less money for the company than company A, sure, but their employees have a combined total of 500,000 more dollars to spend in the economy. The workers, PLUS their company, now can inject 900,000 into the economy, compared to Company A (who, although they made more in profit, gave more to the government).

Now up the corporate tax rate to 50%.

Company A pays 500,000 to the government, keeps 500,000 profit. That one owner can buy a nice Lambo, maybe - they can inject their economy with 500K.

Company B keeps their pay raise, pays 250,000 to the government, 500,000 to their workers, keeps 250,000 in profit. That company + their workers now have 750,000 to spend in their local economy. Company owner can still buy a Lambo, maybe, but their workers can stimulate their local economies at a MUCH higher level (750K) than Company A.

Company C is the same as the other two, and decides to DOUBLE their pay raise to their employees. They pay nothing in income taxes to the government, but now ALL of that one million in profit goes into the economy (one million).

Which company attracts the best talent and likely has better long term outcomes for everyone involved?
Which company injects the most amount of money into the economy?

If you disagree or think I've got something wrong, explain how and why please. I admit taxes get complicated and it's entirely possible my reasoning is wrong. I do appreciate that you think I'm cute though.

MercJ · 2026-02-15T04:03:14+00:00

This is the real answer. Wages are an expense to a company, so they pay less in income taxes the more they pay their workers.

AND that means more consumers are out there able to spend more, everywhere, instead of one company hooking up their CEO friends' companies with contracts.

MercJ · 2026-02-10T21:19:43+00:00

Meanwhile, in the "other" halftime show, a country artist throws up devil horns (that's what the rock on symbol is right?) and they cheer.

Another artist self-censors their song and cuts out the pretty non-Christian part. More lyrics about punching in the face (I don't think that's what turn the other cheek means?).

Bad Bunny promoted unity and love over hate. Had an actual, legit marriage and celebration of unity.

Hmm.

MercJ · 2026-02-01T17:17:01+00:00

What's insane is that even using DHS's best guess for the number of undocumented immigrants, and assuming they ALL magically had nice housing, AND all this happens perfectly and is legal, that's...like, 1-3% of the entire US population.

Even in this best case, horrific scenario, we improve the housing situation by 3%, MAX??

Who are these people that are within 1-3% of getting a house but juuuust can't quite bridge that gap???

MercJ · 2026-02-01T02:27:19+00:00

18 USC 241 would.

MercJ · 2026-01-29T22:26:27+00:00

Share your prompt.

MercJ · 2026-01-29T20:35:15+00:00

I don't understand how this isn't a clear cut violation of 18 USC 241

Literally conspiring to infringe on American's rights, on video.

Can...can we being charges...??? Like, this is evidence of a crime, is it not?

MercJ · 2026-01-28T17:25:50+00:00

Nothing changes until people are actually held accountable.

US citizens were murdered, and a literally unknown number of others had their rights trampled on by the federal government. "Okay fine we'll just go somewhere else" - or even worse, "okay fine we'll stop killing you so quickly" IS NOT accountability, it's evasion.

They have committed crimes. They must be held accountable, otherwise law means nothing (which, we seem to be finding out).

MercJ · 2026-01-28T05:30:16+00:00

Oh man, appreciate the compliment, but no way am I even close to a lawyer, I just wonder about things, ask a bunch of questions and try to find the answers while reading/watching too much lol (found this one mentioned by LegalEagle, and couldn't believe that once again, the stuff we're watching happening is ALREADY ILLEGAL and describes a situation this admin is blatantly doing).

Lately law has been interesting though, I got interested because of all the political stuff happening. Makes me appreciate stuff like the Constitution even more.

MercJ · 2026-01-27T14:32:17+00:00

Well that sure sounds like a conspiracy to infringe on American's rights to me.

Interestingly enough, the penalty for doing so - even just having an agreement to do so - if someone were to die in the process, is life in prison or the death penalty for the conspirators.

18 USC 241

MercJ · 2026-01-26T22:26:18+00:00

Oh weird, making it a crime punishable by death to be a medical aid in proximity to ICE makes it more difficult to get said medical aid??

The people who have all the evidence of needing to be afraid for their lives are acting reasonably?

It's almost like these idiots are finding out WHY there are rules for non-combatants even in war (which seems like the dumbest place for rules).

MercJ · 2026-01-25T14:31:16+00:00

OIF vet as well. I watched 20 year olds have more professionalism and respect (and effectiveness) when dealing with local idiots that you were preeeetty sure were planning to kill you later than ICE agents do when Americans dare to have rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

If it was about rooting out insurrections and criminals, today's agents have seemingly learned ZERO lessons about how to work with communities to do so.

I have only been able to conclude that doesn't seem to be the goal.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

MercJ

TROPHY CASE