This is a huge problem for me! Frequently I can't hear people at all. My team is fully remote from each other, but we're all required to go into one of the company's offices five days a week. The worst of both worlds.
Anything that I buy from a Facebook group or something similar over $x, I set up a camera and record myself opening the product. Anything that I sell over $x, I record evidence of packing and shipping. I don't really have a set value for x, but it's definitely under $690. That might not have made a difference with Amazon, but it can't hurt.
Pretty much all the time, whenever I'm not on my ThinkPad keyboard I use it in place of the trackpoint when I need to make small text selections etc without moving my hands away from the homerow.
Both are attempts at solving the same problem. But whereas pyjanitor is like "lipstick on a pig" (it's still a pig), redframes is like "pigs in a blanket" (hides more of the warts)...
Funny that I was about to comment "it doesn't seem so bad, just draw a directed graph to work it out". Reading your comment it does seem a little unreasonable.
A normative statement - which I declare to point out that you could also share what should be the case.
What might be more helpful is that ballot initiatives should have a stricter template based on type. If you're changing tax code it could be:
- Initiative Type: Taxes
- Affects: The homesteads of elders in X, Y, for Z
- Results: Taxes are raised
- Description: As stated above
- Definitions: Homesteads - X, Elders - Y, ad valorem - etc
Of course this is essentially making the same conclusions as the title which is that standard writing/legalese is really no longer acceptable given the complexity of many modern laws and incentivized parties.
They were deliberately torturing themselves to avoid saying "raise taxes."
What they seem to be saying, if I parsed it correctly:
"We now get to include tax breaks from the previous year as a factor in property value when taxing the elderly."
That seems awful. I kind of get the hyper-technicality they're going for, but it still seems like they're sticking it to seniors... again, if I understood it correctly.
These issues are nuanced. Texas municipalities depend on property taxes more than most as there’s no state income tax.
One thing local government politicians love to do is pass tax exemptions for old people, disabled people, veterans and combinations of the three. It’s a type of patronage, that lets Mayor Good ‘ol Boy drop by the senior center and VFW and pull in the votes.
Property taxes are essentially allocating the levy based on your proportional share of value. When they get out of control in small towns the effect is a two-tier system where some people pay dramatically more.
That’s exactly the opposite of what it does. Stuff like ‘reduce the limitation’ has the same ambiguity as ‘turn down the thermostat’ where it’s not clear if you are lowering the value or the effect.
I'm not 100% certain I understand it, but I see 3 sections in there:
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the reduction of the amount of
a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary public school purposes on the residence homestead of a person who is elderly or disabled
to reflect any statutory reduction from the preceding tax year in the maximum compressed rate of the maintenance and operations taxes imposed for those purposes on the homestead.
The argument of untapped talent simply doesn’t influence my employer. Middle managers have been pushing to continue remote, and executives have told us in department meetings that the company values culture above all, and part of our culture is being in person. Many people moved during the pandemic and if they want to stay on they need to go into a company office every day. My team of nine is spread across five offices and we’re all required to go into a company office 5 days a week, regardless of whether we do work with anyone in that office.
