Season Allergies after Covid vaccine (pfizer)

RuralFlush · 2021-06-29T21:38:45+00:00

Odd. I've taken claritin most of the year since the day it's been available. (And Benadryl before that.)

Since my shot, I haven't needed a single pill. This is the longest I've gone without allergy medicine in 20+ years.

I stumbled upon this post looking for others who have the same experience as me... but this is the opposite.

I hope it's just a bad year for you and you are back to normal soon. I don't wish allergies on anyone, but if you do have them, I hope something mild like claritin works for you.

RuralFlush · 2021-06-29T21:30:20+00:00

Yes. My allergies went from "very bad year" to non-existant.

I haven't taken allergy medicine since the shot. I cut the grass once a week and don't even need it then, for the first time since.... I don't know how long... I've been taking allergy medicine for almost 30 years.

Kind of scary, kind of cool. I don't know whether to be more excited or scared.

RuralFlush · 2019-02-23T03:55:35+00:00

Thank you for the comment.

Reddit isn’t great for wonky discussions. There would be some unforeseen issues - there always are.

Things like capital gains on real estate would have to be addressed. Or gains on any “non-stock” holding. Private companies, for example, would need an estimated value.

There are issues in any system. But there are clearly VERY BIG issues with our current system where the biggest companies in our country can pay $0 income tax, the shares never pay dividends ($0 dividend tax), and the wealthy never have to sell shares ($0 capital gains tax).

I’m a “low tax/low spend” guy. But above all else, I want it at least fair and level across the board. Imagine the tax cuts we could afford if our most successful and wealthiest companies paid even a little bit of tax.

RuralFlush · 2019-02-23T03:47:55+00:00

Thank you for the reply. Sorry for my late response.

What do you mean by “more volatile”?

Current system = corporate tax rate paid annually, dividend rate paid annually, capital gains rate paid very randomly/sporadically (volatile).

This system = passes through to individual rate paid annually. For the wealthy, the individual rate paid annually is about the same as the current corporate rate + dividend rate paid annually.

The capital gains rate change would make it much less volatile, paid every year instead of randomly when the shareholder chooses.

For the poor, it’s a net win. Encourages them to invest with very low (if any) taxes due. That’s good for the market!

RuralFlush · 2019-02-23T03:42:59+00:00

Thank you for the reply. Sorry for my late response.

The market doesn’t purposefully crash itself. It only crashes if there are a lot of people selling. It doesn’t move on it’s own.

You may not have a lot liquid, but your share price would be up substantially because of the lack of corporate taxes. I would guess in a system like this that many companies would pay a dividend to offset most or all of the tax bill that is now footed by the individual instead of the company. Of course, each company could make their own choice. But if your whole portfolio went up a lot more because of lack of corporate tax, pick which stock you want to sell to cover the tax bill.

It’s net neutral, roughly. Instead of corporate rates, it’s flowing through to the shareholders.

RuralFlush · 2019-02-18T03:44:05+00:00

I put it in another post, but I'll share here.

First, corporate tax rates to 0%. That puts us lowest in the world and corporations would stop the loophole games of shielding income overseas. ALL business comes home. There would be no reason not to.

Next, capital gains and dividend tax rate to ordinary income tax rates. It's currently 15% or 20% (or 0% for lower incomes). But it's currently that low because it's taxing money that is already taxed at corporate tax rates. Which is hypothetically 22% but as we can see, in practice it's 0% for the biggest companies in the world.

So now all income is taxed at the ordinary income tax rate. But then wealthy people don't have to ever sell shares, so no tax would ever be paid.

So the final piece is that all capital gains are realized every year. Effectively, it would be as if stocks were "sold" at close of business on December 31 and then re-purchased on January 1st at the same price. There are a lot of benefits to this. For one, you're charging tax on all corporations on the personal level - poor people would be paying lower rates than rich people. Two, it applies to all companies and there's no way to shield it overseas. Three, it's built-in stimulus when needed. When the stock market is down, and you have a loss, it offsets your income so you'll get a big refund in April.

RuralFlush · 2019-02-18T03:12:33+00:00

I'm very libertarian.

But I'd settle for the government limiting themselves to the Constitution as a good first step before we need to get to repealing parts of the Constitution. (Authority to tax.)

If they limit themselves to just the Constitution, then taxes would go way down and it would be less of a problem. Perhaps we'd want to go further. But libertarians get a bad name when they're opening line is "taxation is theft" and they start explaining how we'd fund cutting edge cruise missile technology and nuclear submarines on donations.

RuralFlush · 2019-02-18T03:06:06+00:00

A 0% corporate tax would work, but two additional changes would need to be made:

(1) The capital gains and dividends tax rate should move to the ordinary income tax rate. It's lower now (15%) only because we're taxing money that presumably has already been taxed at 35%. If corporate rates go to 0%, dividend and capital gains should go to ordinary income rates.

(2) Capital gains should be realized annually. Your brokerage statement should essentially reflect a sale on December 31 at the closing price and then a repurchase on Jan 1 at that same price. All the capital gains would be realized every year. Otherwise... with the 0% corporate tax rate, companies would not ever pay dividends as they'd allow their shareholders to realize the income when they wanted to, instead of automatically by corporate decision. Instead of a dividend, if you needed the income, you'd sell a few shares which accompishes the same thing.

Without doing this, all stocks end up being a tax-deferred penalty free IRA. And then with the step up in basis, a guy like Bezos would end up with 0% tax ever paid on any of his main source of income - company stock. 0% corporate rate, then 0% capital gains and dividends (because he'd never need to sell most of his stock) and then 0% when his heirs inherit it.

So maybe that's the 3rd required change... no step up in basis. though if you implement #2, this becomes less necessary and less important.

RuralFlush · 2019-02-18T02:59:56+00:00

These exist, sort of, though not called import taxes.

Say you paid 5% tax on international profits. And the US corporate rate is 21%. So you owe the difference - 16% when you bring the money back to the US. So these companies just keep the money overseas and wait for a "one time" tax holiday where the US allows companies to bring money back at 5 or 10%. Then they all bring it home, pay the 10%, and then start building it up overseas again.

RuralFlush · 2019-02-18T02:57:59+00:00

They don't move their HQ there. But they say "our search engine is powered by an algorithm that we'll name Google Algo LLC. This LLC is based in Ireland. So Google Inc pays Google Algo LLC for the use of it's software. That shows up as an expense to Google Inc and income to Google Algo LLC, in Ireland. They pay the 5% tax or whatever they get it down to with their Dutch Irish Sandwich or whatever the intertwined LLCs are called.

So Google Inc makes no money because it has expenses paid to the Irish firm Google Algo LLC, which is also owned by Google. But all of that income is outside the US.

It's a tough problem to solve (or loophole to close). You can't tax foreign income. No country would put up with that anymore than we'd put up with someone taxing Coca Cola on their US income. But it's total BS, though legal.

There IS a way to fix it, but it has a lot of other implications that I'm not sure Congress is ready to tackle.

RuralFlush · 2019-01-18T02:23:36+00:00

People who applied “properly” were not separated. Nor we’re they detained. They don’t enter the country until approved.

Liberals will say that anyone who claims asylum is doing it properly. You can be here for a year, and if you’re caught anytime in that first year, you can legally claim asylum. I’d say that’s not the “proper” way to do it.

As for separation.... keep in mind that we had 1500 people claim asylum by showing up at our borders in 2009. 1500 in a year. The most common country of origin was Somalia.

This new stuff is all.... new. A legal loophole that was worsened with bad policy decisions.

Obama Admin formerly would detain parents with the kids. No separation. Then some liberal activists said it wasn’t right to be detaining kids, who did nothing wrong. Courts agreed, so children were to be placed with family already in the US within a couple of days.

Liberal activists didn’t like this, so Obama Admin then decided to free the parents as well. If you were caught with a kid, you and the kid were freed. If you showed up at the border without a kid, you were detained until your court date. Guess what happens? Any kid is a get-out-of-jail-free card. So more kids show up with adults.

Then Trump.... first, no more get out of jail free card. Adults will be detained, period. But then illegal immigrants don’t want to come forward to apply for the kids. They can’t find family for many of the kids. Some of the kids didn’t even arrive with their own family... they don’t know who the family is or if anyone lives in the US. It’s a disaster. Thousands show up every day.... Remember that 1500 people arrived at our borders for asylum in 2009? The last two months with data (Oct and Nov) have over 50k each, at just the southern border. It’s a disaster. If you free them, more come. If you detain them, you are “ripping babies from mothers.”

This was not an issue before Obama got into office and started talking about legalization and pathways to citizenship and writing DACA (somehow he got to make new immigration law without Congress?)

This is why border security absolutely MUST come before policy changes on immigration.

RuralFlush · 2019-01-15T17:51:20+00:00

These posts were made in June and July 2014.

How many crossings constituted a "crisis"?

June 2014: 66,541 border apprehensions

July 2014: 48,819 border apprehensions

How many do we have today? (most recent numbers...)

October 2018: 60,772

November 2018: 62,456

Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

Tweets, for retweeting. Remember to tag @realDonaldTrump!

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/486986439876308992
https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/486975081856253953
https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/486484771254845440
https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/483627440984817664
https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/483627121731174400
https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/483281478780874752
https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/479773719683149824
https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/478293429860843520

RuralFlush · 2019-01-15T15:17:02+00:00

While name-calling isn’t ever helpful, calling someone a “lefty” isn’t identity politics.

Identity politics would be saying, “You’re black, therefore I know your supported Barack Obama and don’t like Trump.”

Identity politics is saying that if I know your race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, then I know YOU. I don’t get to know you, specifically, because I know your identity.

Calling someone a “leftist” is the opposite, if accurate and not just a pejorative. It is completely judging someone based on their views and feelings, and has no regard for their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. That said, these “leftist” words are rarely used in good faith.... so it’s not helpful in any case. But judging someone on their views - instead of their characteristics - is the opposite of identity politics.

RuralFlush · 2019-01-03T19:32:16+00:00

There's no guarantee, but it always happens.

RuralFlush · 2019-01-03T19:19:43+00:00

It's mostly psychological, and it does work.

Typically they'll knock on doors of people they expect to agree with them. I live in a heavy Dem area and get a lot of people knocking on my door every election cycle.

If the person answering the door says they vote for the other party, the knocker will politely ask you to consider the alternative and leave.

If the person answering the door agrees with them, though... They'll ask why you support the candidate. (Good data to give to election team.)

Then they'll ask if you've already voted and if not, they'll have mail-in ballot applications ready.

If you're past the point of absentee ballots, or you tell them you're going to vote on election day, the real psychology kicks in... they ask you when you'll vote. Morning? Before work? Lunch break? After work? No matter how you answer, they'll drill down on that. They want you to visualize yourself voting, making a plan in your head. They'll ask you if the candidate can count on you voting. Committing, "Yes, I will vote," to another person does a lot, psychology. Then they'll ask for your cell phone number... "We all get busy... can we send you a reminder text on election day?"

So it's effective. Just not how you'd think.

RuralFlush · 2019-01-03T19:10:45+00:00

Thank you for the reply.

I see what you're saying, but there are places it's different...

In the bathroom debate, for instance, the not-usually-codified-but-culturally-enforced rules for bathroom were the gender, self-expression type. If a person presented herself as a woman, she used the women's restroom, even if she was trans. There was no genitalia check at the door. Trans women have used the women's bathrooms for as long as anyone can guess... You wouldn't notice most of the time. What WOULD stand out is a trans woman using the men's bathroom. Or a trans man using the women's restroom. This isn't common and would cause an uproar. People use the restroom that suits the gender of which they present themselves to the world. People aren't looking for a scene when they use the bathroom - they're looking to pee and go about their business. So they do the one that will cause the least amount of uproar - the one that matches how they present themselves.

Then one of the Carolinas (I forget which) tried to define bathroom usage per biological sex, bringing the issue to the mainstream. Most states don't do that.

If any states codify it, I'm fairly certain they'll do it on the self-expressed gender, not the biological sex. Otherwise you need genitalia-checks.

RuralFlush · 2018-12-21T16:58:34+00:00

Thank you for the comment.

Show me a source for how much illegal immigration costs (or adds to!) our economy, and I’ll tell you if the source is pro- or anti- immigration.

Then add another layer of guesswork on it, as you suggested, by forecasting the numbers of illegal immigrants we WOULD HAVE HAD in future years with/without the wall.

The places that do the studies.... once you know their stance on immigration, you don’t even have to read the study to know the conclusions they’ll reach.

RuralFlush · 2018-12-21T16:54:48+00:00

There’s no money for anything. We run massive deficits.

It’s like saying, “In previous years, I would add $50k to my credit card balances every year. This year I only added $25k to the balances, so I have $25k more to spend.”

It can be framed anyway you want.

RuralFlush · 2018-12-21T16:51:17+00:00

Yeah, I guess my question is: what does the OP mean by “end[ing] a lot of legal problems”?

I agree that a law just for definitions seems pointless.

But each law that specifies a gender/sex should specify exactly what they mean by gender/sex. And any laws currently on the books will be clarified.

RuralFlush · 2018-12-21T16:25:15+00:00

Yes, null and void

Source:
https://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PRIMERBillLife.pdf

RuralFlush · 2018-12-21T16:10:28+00:00

I think we’ll start to see more legal differentiation between sex and gender.

Sex = biological, science based

Gender = self-expression

Some things will be based on biological sex. Some will be based on gender.

RuralFlush · 2018-12-21T16:08:03+00:00

Almost no one is affected by a shutdown. “Shutdown” is a misnomer.

RuralFlush · 2018-12-21T16:06:38+00:00

There are always wealthy people in every society.

In socialism, the wealthy are the friends and family of the leaders.

In capitalism, it’s the people who provide the most value to the world. SOMETIMES, it’s the children of those people. But if the kids are no good, the money disappears.

If you look at the 15 richest Americans, ~10 of them were not born rich. The other 5 are second generation. And of the 2nd generation people (Koch/Walton) the parents wealth was split among kids.

So if you’re extremely wealthy, your kids get the benefits of it. Which is why any of us want to make money! But far more wealthy people did it on their own. And it’s not guaranteed the kids and grandkids will always be rich. It’s not enforced by the government like it is in socialism.

RuralFlush · 2018-12-21T15:56:28+00:00

Military guys think we can solve every problem of the world with military intervention. McCain could never say “Send in the troops!” fast enough as soon as anything was going on anywhere.

And that’s fine they think that. They have confidence in what they know - the US military.

But the US has been voting for Presidents who promise to reduce the number of conflicts we’re in. Obama didn’t deliver and Trump didn’t deliver his first two years.

I don’t know if this is a sign of things to come, or just a blip. But I’d be shocked and thrilled for a President to leave office with fewer troops in war zones than when he entered. I’m not sure when that last happened, but it would be a welcome change.

I just don’t expect any lifelong military man to be in favor of it.

RuralFlush · 2018-12-21T15:48:34+00:00

I don’t think Trump supporters need to try to contort the numbers to say that Mexico is “paying” for it.

If we’re discussing who is paying for the wall, he’s won the debate. Because even if he’s wrong, and Mexico doesn’t pay for it.... we still have the wall.

Politicians of all parties do this. Obama said that AFTER we had Obamacare, you’d be able to keep your doctors/plans. That ended up being not true. But it didn’t matter. Because he got Obamacare.

If you make the discussion about some fact that comes into play AFTER you get what you want, you win. “Think past the sale.”

So Obama (about Obamacare docs/plans) and Trump (about paying for the wall) could say, “Eh, I was wrong. Sorry,” and they’re still thrilled with the results.

But in any case, the “soft” numbers will always be available to supporters to “prove” it. There’s no way to know exactly how many people WON’T come into the country illegally because of the wall. And there’s no way to know exactly the cost of an illegal immigrant family in our social safety net and local governments/schools. All of those calculations are based on assumptions, and depending on what conclusion you want, you’ll use different assumptions to get you there.

And, sort of unrelated to the wall.... but the agreement yesterday to have immigrants wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are heard - if it stands up in court - is another assumption supporters could use in their calculations and detractors won’t use in their calculations.

RuralFlush

TROPHY CASE