There have been about 5,000 acres burned so far in Cuba. For comparison, the largest fires in California in 2020 and in 2021 were each about a million acres, with several other quarter to half million acre fires in California over the last five years.

This is a huge issue, don’t get me wrong. And it’s absolutely yet another sign that climate change is going to fuck us all over. But I’m not sure that “massive” is the most correct adjective to go with for the headline here.

It’s racist code for native individuals all over the US, not just in Alaska.

> These prosecutors will trump up the charges so you're facing hundreds of years and then offer you a plea deal for like 5yrs.

Friend of mine was once facing eight life sentences without parole. Accepted a plea bargain for time served. Which was admittedly like six months because he couldn't afford the million dollar bail, but that's not all that much better.

> If anything I described is illegal I'd love to hear it.

Strictly, there are limits on how much and how often you can claim a loss or zero for a tax year sequentially, but that’s not picking.

The difference here is in how the item is categorized at its purchase. Although corporations, including LLCs, are legally considered individuals, the law and the tax code recognize that a person who exists only as a legal non corporeal entity doesn’t do things like watch TV for fun, and that assets purchased by an LLC are therefore generally treated as stock or tools or money making equipment and not as discretionary spending.

You could, as an individual, purchase this TV specifically as an asset, and then deprecate its value over time and modify the taxes due thereby. You would technically be required to quantify the Monterrey value extracted via use, but it’s hard to put a cash value on you watching a show (it’s much easier for something like a car, where value and deprecation are given very specific values.) Ypu would still have some restrictions though, as you’re only acting as one legal entity. Making an LLC does get around this, as would having a roommate (or even a child who files taxes) do the same thing.

You’re treating this situation as though it’s the same, but it’s not because that tax code is literally different for this specific example you’re using. Which is crazy, I’ll grant your but there it is. The garage sale guy though did not set up an LLC, so your theoretical situation does not apply to him. Not did he (presumably) file taxes with an itemized deduction and deduct against business costs, and so he owes taxes on those sales. It’s possible that he would have less of a tax burden if he did file itemized, but even if that’s that case he would still owe taxes on those sales (it’s just that the amount of those taxes would potentially be offset by prior costs).

But you shouldn’t take any advice about taxes on the internet at face value. If you have questions about taxes, you should always consult a licensed tax specialist.

> They said they were moving and ebayed stuff, that means they were probably clearing out old stuff they didn't need any more or want to take with them.

Regardless of what the guy I replied to believes his tax burden is, eBaying old knick knacks because of a move is (usually) considered income, and taxes are due on those sales.

>They're saying they made no profit because they most definitely sold it for less than they bought it for,

That's not how this works. If someone buys a TV for personal use, uses it for five years, and then sells it on eBay, they don't get to claim a loss on the item because it sold as less than retail. That TV wasn't a stocked product, and trying to write it off as a loss against profits will rightfully get you audited.

> If you get flagged, you need to prove you made less than $600 in profits which is difficult.

There are a lot of tools, many free, that automatically or mostly automatically keep track of income and expenses and spit out a formatted spreadsheet at the end of the year with all the documentation that the IRS needs. If you use any most any mobile POS software, that's included. You could also use a personal finance manager and have it tag line items on your account.

It's not difficult provided that you start off doing it right and don't try to back fill at the end of the year.

> Landlords will just use Zelle since it doesn't report. > >

If you're feeling vindictive, you can file with the IRS to show a record of the amount you've paid in rent as income for your landlord.

> if you go to message boards for landlords,

Also a lot of hobbyist makers (Etsy, et al), collectibles merchants, and flippers.

> It let's you take advantage of those expense deductions (rented space, guitar strings, yada yada) against any income you're earning with your music.

You can take advantage of this even if you file as an individual, it's just a couple different steps.

Which isn't to say that llcs aren't useful. They absolutely are, and more people should take advantage of them. But more people should take advantage of tax benefits too.

> least a day's worth of research or a tax specialist to pull off properly.

On the plus side, the amount you pay to that tax specialist is probably tax deductible.

> There's nowhere you have to be that's more important than your life

The thing is, some of these people are driving because it is literally a matter of life and death. So while yes, there should be less people on the road, the solution is to get the government to ensure a better social safety net and worker protections for unsafe travel conditions, not to armchair quarterback the person driving to work because if he doesn't his two kids won't eat.

> You can blame (or not blame) whoever you like but it doesn't change the fact that homelessness brings crime and filthy conditions.

I genuinely hope that you yourself are never lumped in to a group of people you're not a part of, and blamed for their actions.

Stay safe, friend.

> These things hardly happened until the homeless came to the neighborhood.

No, these things never happened until the criminals came to the neighborhood.

Or are you seriously arguing that 100% of unhoused people are criminals?

> the homeless have moved in droves (hundreds of trailers and tents) to my neighborhood. There is trash everywhere, crime has spiked out of control, convenience businesses like 7eleven have closed because they were being robbed every week.

You don't have a problem with the homeless, friend. You have a problem with with thieves, litterbugs, and other criminals.

I suspect he thinks that you could sign up for a 'different' google account using periods, not realizing that Google won't let you do that.

Ok, I'll bite.

Why?

There was a 4.1 a month ago in the north bay that also had warnings go out to 4 (iirc) counties. It beat the shockwave in most locations.

> It is interesting that you leave the moment you think it is out of your favor. If you only talk with people who you see eye to eye with, then you are simply enforcing your own echo chamber.

No friend, I left when you tried to change the discussion from general examination of jury nullification to specific arguments about unconscious racial bias and whether or not I support the death penalty.

> .This is not a rhetorical question. Would you be in favor of that?

It's clearly a rhetorical question, because there's no just world where such a law is anything other than absurd.

It's clear we don't see eye to eye on this. I'm out. Be well, friend.

So your argument is that we shouldn't allow a jury to have this power because we should rely on the integrity of the rest of the legal system? Bold strategy.

I'm happy to grant that in an idealized perfect world jury nullification is a silly unnecessary thing. But we don't live in an ideal world, and I'll trust twelve random people (or even twelve semi random people) with the pursuit of true justice far more than I'll trust any police officer or prosecutor. And as long as that's the case, jury nullification is fundamentally necessary, even if it suffers from the same societal biases that the rest of the legal system does.

> Instead of relying on a roll of the dice Rouge juror to "fix" a law (note that their definition of fixing may be negative) you should simply fix the problematic law.

I agree that no one should 'rely' upon jury nullification, and we should also work wherever possible to strike unjust laws from the record.

But that also still isn't an argument against jury nullification existing.

> Do you think nullification was fine when it was very commonly used until relatively recently to make black people guilty of crimes they didn't commit?

The interesting thing about that is that a jury does not have the power to put someone on trial, only to adjudicate guilt. In order for this to happen, there first needs to be a police department that arrests the person, and then a prosecutor that chose to press that charge, and then a judge that didn't dismiss it as foundationless. So yeah, that's not great, but it's only a symptom of a system that is otherwise already 100% corrupt and broken. No, it wasn't fine, but that's also not an argument in any way against it existing no.

> Jurors are not allowed to make decisions for any reason, they need to be based on the law in question.

The fact that a lawyer is often prohibited from discussing jury nullification does not mean that it doesn't exist. It is in fact a fundamental balancing part of the conceptual framework for the US legal system.