In the article, she is quoted as saying that winnings from poker can be taxed at 60%. But I Googled it and the first few sites that I clicked on say more like 25%. What am I missing?
Professional gamblers are supposed to pay self employment tax, which is 15.3% (half is deductible), and then all ordinary income taxes. So that's a top federal rate of 37%, plus -- she's presumably a New York City resident -- another 8.82% at the top rate for NY and 3.82% for NYC. That's about 65% gross, then once you factor in the deduction... about a 60% net marginal tax rate.
So she's not wrong, but she'd only be hitting those numbers if she won a really big tournament or two.
Edit: I forgot that the self employment tax phases out at ~$120k labor income, so she'd need a lot of investment income (or a high earning spouse) to pay both the top marginal income tax rates and the and 15% employment tax.
The big self employment tax hit is for SS, and that maxes out well before she gets anywhere near the 37% rate. And it's not 37% for entire ride. Nevertheless I'd wager that you're mostly spot on and she's adding in the top local rates and applying it to the first dollar of income.
I used to believe this sentiment about 8 years ago, but after many republican presidents, our nation is only further in debt. Only Bernie Sanders seems to care about our nation’s increasing debt and he’s a registered independent.
Honestly, it is for ordinary wages also. The self-employment tax is basically the same as the employee and employer portions of the FICA taxes. (I think the only difference is that the self-employment tax basis is the before tax income while the wages tax basis is after the employer portion has already been paid.)
Depending on whether you're filing as a professional or not, you may be paying self-employment tax. But in general, gambling winnings of that nature (big tournament scores) are pretty likely to put you in a high tax bracket and/or trigger AMT. You can deduct losses but it's a bit of a fight with the IRS every year, since they have records of every time you've won $1200 or more, but no records of every time you've lost $10k entering a tournament and not cashing.
If you fail to keep a receipt for a $10k entry fee I think that's on you.
Edit: I think you can't carry over losses from prior years, so if you lose money one year and make money the next, your taxes on your net earnings can be higher. Rule of thumb for professional poker players: If you don't have a profitable tax year, it is time to quit.
Another thought along those lines, is that men tend to try and ignore discomfort. If a man gets a pain in his chest, he is likely to think to himself, "I'll wait and see if it gets worse!" If the same man is living with someone, he might say to them, "I have a slight pain right here!" pointing to his chest. Then that person would begin to pressure him to have it checked.
It's even worse when you get chest pain periodically but it's not a heart attack, and gone to the emergency room and paid the money for it multiple times, and they just tell you that you didn't have a heart attack, it's probably something musculoskeletal or heart burn, tell you to go home and take some Prilosec.
I went to the ER three times last year because of these pains (and one time several years before that). The last three or four times it happened since then I just stayed at home and tried to relax. But it scares the hell out of me that one of these times it could be more than that, and I'll choose not to go to the ER and that'll be the one that kills me.
It wasn't always just chest pain either, I had other symptoms, like a weak left arm, lightheaded, short of breath, pain in other areas of my body as well, heart beating really fast, etc. Common heart attack symptoms, and now I don't know if I should go or not when it happens again. Even my girlfriend is skeptical when I tell her I'm feeling this way now.
I can relate. I had a couple of bouts of chest pain/could be panic attacks/could be anything in the last couple of years. I think it might be connected with my blood pressure medicine, but again the real problem is that it could be anything. Not having had a heart attack before, one doesn't know what it feels like, so you're left wondering, "It that what it feels like?" I've been very healthy all my life and so when something suddenly isn't right, it's so surprising. All the time I'm thinking, "Well, why all of a sudden now?"
The one thing I can say is that the worry itself seems to make things about a million times worse. I've made a big effort to remove stress from my life and it seems to have helped. With my medicine, I had to explain to my doctor that "10% chance of side effect X" doesn't mean that it's very unlikely that the side effect I'm having is from the medicine -- rather that he should expect that 10% of his patients taking the medicine will get that side effect from it. Amazing, but he'd never realised that before. Now he's a lot more cooperative about choosing medicine that doesn't cause serious problems :-).
I think a big part, though, is that having a belief that you are healthy makes a big difference in how you interpret problems with your body. For me, once I got things checked out I reasoned that the chance that they've made a mistake is quite small. So while I may have a symptom it does not necessarily follow that I have a serious problem. Getting it checked out is important, but once you have, then worrying is only likely to make you ill. So far that's worked well for me. YMMV.
(But as you say -- still scary as hell if you think about it too much...)
And then you have celebrities like Kevin Smith that tell their having a heart attack story and say 'it just felt like I was a little out of breath, but they said my Widowmaker artery was 80% blocked and if they didn't operate right away I would die.', and I'm like 'I have asthma. I often feel like I'm "a little short of breath". If that's the only symptom I get, I'm screwed!'
I am not eating healthy enough or exercising anywhere near enough still to feel confident enough that I'm healthy. I need to course correct for that. Work really hasn't helped lately. A lot of late nights and stress, and my willpower goes to shit when I'm stressed.
Have you talked to a cardiologist? If not, you should. You might end up doing a stress test or an echocardiogram, and ruling out or confirming various possibilities. You might end up getting prescriptions for medications that you can use when you're feeling that sort of pain.
Also, while I hesitate to recommend calling EMS out unnecessarily, you may refuse transport to the hospital even if you've called 911 for a possible emergency, in the U.S. Paramedics can do an EKG, and while hospitals can additionally use bloodwork to rule out tissue death, you could make the choice to refuse further medical treatment once the paramedics have seen no signs of a heart attack.
I do have a stress test I got my Primary Care doctor to write up that I need to schedule sometime soon.
I went to a cardiologist a few years ago, but basically he had me do a stress test and an EKG, said 'you're fine', told me to exercise 7 days a week!? for a year (like no day off, no guidance on how intense it should be, just that comment), and wanted me to see him again a year later. It didn't leave a good taste in my mouth and I didn't go back.
They did a bunch of EKGs during my episodes at the ER and they all came back normal, so I think I just need to do the stress test, for now. I had an echocardiogram done when I first went to the hospital for this a few years ago, and that was normal also.
I actually paid $100 for a trip to the emergency room with this strange pain under my left pectoral and got told they couldn't a damn thing, probably just muscle pain. I think its related to how much I'm seated throughout the day.
Wait what? I would expect an emergency room trip in the US to be $1,000 - $10,000 particularly somewhere like S.F., especially since most emergency room visits are to the nearest hospital which could be out-of-network.
It varies by hospital and insurance. One of my visits to ER was $1300. Once I moved to the next town over a couple months later, the other two ER visits to a different hospital were $650 each.
BUT, that $1300 really caught me by surprise because about five years ago I had gone to the same hospital, for the same thing, and let myself be admitted to stay overnight for more tests, and that only cost me $450 ($150 copay and $300 for a doctor that visited during that).
And yeah, that's one reason why I hesitate to go to ER now. Having to pay about $4000 for a few ER visits and a few extra tests afterwards that all came back negative was not my idea of a fun way to spend money that summer (fun fact, I also had to pay $4000 in car repairs that same summer. It was a fun summer).
It's not just pressure but peer support. If you're alone and you got chest pain. You might have anxiety that doctor will say nothing is wrong and that's embarrassing for some.
That’s not a male exclusive trait or even generalizable rule. Headache sufferers (often or mostly? women) tend to “wait and see” with their pain, for instance. It’s a character trait and also knowledge based. For headache sufferers, it, for me, is just giving in to the inevitable-it’s fast to exhaust the pain management options. A nurse is in a position to know more about the difference between aches and pains and true emergencies. But even that’s not a rule. My medical family definitely ignored a lot of my health issues growing up because of their backgrounds. My dad heated a scalpel over a flame and dig into my thumb for a splinter when I was 5. (He let it cool, but still.)
> Having someone else around to call an ambulance for you when you're having a heart attack can have a large effect on the outcome.
This was my first thought as well when I saw the study. The study doesn't really indicate if deaths are do to this factor or to other longer term factors. I wonder how much of the study (and it might not be much) can be explained by not having someone around to call 911. Or if you are living alone not having something like life alert. Additionally, something like life alert does not always help. Falls is a major issue for older populations, and if you are knocked out because of a fall (or fall because you passed out) having someone to call an ambulance is critical.
I can imagine a time (not there yet) when -- if lifelike android companions existed, and I had one -- I could forget that it wasn't human. Especially if it nagged me about stuff.
More realistically, I can imagine that about a homecare worker.
not fond of this but people were designing smart floor to detect falls and call for help
about the latter... I know doctors don't like when people inflates tiny issues but I've seen a few people die because they didn't listen to naggers around them
Having someone else around who's a negative influence on dietary, entertainment, and general physical activity choices can have a large effect on the probability you'll need an ambulance.
Having someone else around who's a positive influence on dietary, entertainment, and general physical activity choices can have a large effect on the probability you'll need an ambulance.
Social interaction and co-habitation is not a zero-sum game. I'm sure we're both working from our own personal experience here, but for me I've always found living with a room-mate or significant other to be a net positive for both parties. It's easier to cook healthy home meals for two then one, both in terms of purchasing/portioning and the ability to split up or alternate the work. It's easier to not skip workouts or social events when you hold each other accountable for them. The mental and emotional stimulation that comes from having someone else to talk to and do things with rather than passively consuming mass media alone.
Sure, it's possible for someone with bad personal habits to be a negative influence on someone who struggles to maintain their own good habits, but two people with generally good habits can easily create positive feedback that allows them both to improve.
> Finding parity is quite difficult, particularly when you already take good care of yourself.
My wife and I have actually driven each other to be better than either of us alone ever were. We're fitter and healthier than we ever were, and it's largely because on nights I don't want to go the gym she does - we act as each-others champions.
Also, it's surprising to find out the things you don't about yourself until you see it through another person's eyes.
I hope you appreciate how exceptional a situation that is.
Statistically speaking, 75%+ of the adults in the US are overweight. That is the pool being drawn from.
So when you're not in the overweight majority, and have no interest in cohabitating with an overweight person who presumably lives a lifestyle contributing to being overweight, you already have just 25% or less of the population to pick from.
Now you need to find within that fraction someone you actually like as a person, who doesn't have any of the other unhealthy habits unrelated to being overweight you want nothing to do with.
You sound like you've made up your mind to make negative assumptions about others. You might be able to draw on statistics, even, in support of that. But the idea that 75% of the pool isn't eligible as far as you're concerned doesn't make the situation exceptional. Two overweight people could still cheer each other on. Or an overweight person and a non-overweight person could cheer each other on to different goals.
Your biases seem to be driving your views more than your supposed rationality, at least on this issue.
My wife and I both started overweight. I don't know why you think that being with an overweight person will drag you down. Sure, you may gain some initial chub as a lot of people in relationships do, but as the article indicates, the fact that you're not alone is probably going to do more for your life expectancy than those 10 lbs.
The article is pseudo-scientific nonsense, it doesn't prove any causal relationships, it's just observing a correlation.
There are plenty of obvious reasons people likely to die young would end up alone. It's natural to not be attracted to people likely to die young, it's a behavior our evolution has selected for.
We're not attracted to sick-looking people, for example.
I think the arguments for attraction based upon evolution are weak, otherwise we wouldn't see what we like changing with society. Evolution would demand there's major biological components there, but our preferences as a society swing far too fast for biological determinism to be at play.
That's cool if you set your standards extraordinarily high and you can't find someone because of it, but don't blame evolution, realize you set those standards.
You're either willfully putting words in my mouth, or simply failing at reading comprehension.
I'm pointing out obvious reasons people who die prematurely would also be alone, pointing out obvious flaws with the article's unscientific claims.
People who are sick are less attractive to the opposite sex, this is a deeply-rooted evolutionary trait. I'm saying this in reference to one of many obvious reasons people destined to die early also are alone. Few want to date or live with seriously ill people. They're arguably not dying young because they're alone, they're alone because they're sick and likely to die young.
I made no such claim that evolution explains my personal choices on this topic as it pertains to my life, no sir, I proudly own those 100%.
> People who are sick are less attractive to the opposite sex, this is a deeply-rooted evolutionary trait.
My argument is that "evolutionary attraction" isn't actually a phenomena. Our interests have swung wildly from valuing huge to tiny and from pale to tan all due to cultural shifts, not because of an innate inbuilt evolutionary mechanism - there was no filtering of genes due to these features. Heroin chic was a thing, and that's downright sickly.
You can disable driver signing enforcement if you want to install drivers without having them signed.
Driver signing enforcement enhances the security of the OS by preventing malware from installing kernel mode drivers that would hypothetically have unlimited access to the device without the consent or knowledge of the user.
afaik you cannot just 'disable' it. You have to disable it every time you boot the computer, and secure boot has to be disabled. I would agree with you if microsofts signing process was 21st century and anyone could do it through proper channels but last time I checked it's archaic and targetable by anyone wanting to make a virus anyways. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17195758
If you're a professional or part of a professional organization, this is a small hurdle to clear and most would agree that the increased security posture for the end user is worth the inconvenience/price for developers.
If you're an amateur/hobbyist/tinkerer and just want to play with kernel driver development, then you can disable the signing enforcement.
Anyway I'm sorry for derailing from the actual point of this post - it's a very cool project!
Professional organization vs hobbyist is a false dichotomy. We have entire operating systems that would be classified as made by hobbyists, yet are used by "serious organizations".
It also means, that we will not get some nice things, we would otherwise have. See also iSCSI initiator or FUSE for macOS. They have same problem - need to be signed by the right certificate, so nobody bothered.
Other systems, when they are running in Secure Boot mode, also accept kernel modules signed by the same keys, that are enrolled into UEFI. Why can't Windows and Mac do the same?
Fuse for macOS is signed by its developer, not sure what you mean "not get some nice things"? Or did you mean for windows? (Both windows and macOS require paid developer certificates to load kernel drivers)
> Anyway I'm sorry for derailing from the actual point of this post - it's a very cool project!
Yeah cool project, yet if you'll read the issues on github, you might realize, that at some point no one will be able to use it hassle free, when the author stops renewing a code signing certificate. And for a hobby project, I wouldn't blame him. Some people can't use it hassle free now, because of signing issues.
I ceratinly can't install it on my gf's notebook, so that she can play audio over my speakers, because it would stop working after each reboot.
That's not how it works at all--I run unsigned drivers on some of my machines all the time because occasionally user-hacked drivers work better with this or that video capture device. You have to reboot to install an unsigned driver; it works just fine afterwards.
Sort of. I don't know if I'd call it irony, exactly—the physical metaphor would perhaps be that the garbage truck comes by once a week but I still have to remember to take the bins out to the curb. GC definitely gets overhyped for beginners, though. Most docs/tutorials "forget" (see what I did there?) to mention memory management until the situation becomes so complex that it's unavoidable, by which time the concept is unnecessarily difficult to map onto established patterns.
