Not_mikey

Even better, use the free fillable forms. You can fill them out and submit them all within your browser, no mail or paper required. Even has a do the math button that will add stuff up for you.

Have been using it for the past two tax cycles and once you understand it it's quite easy, only 2 pages needed if you're doing the standard deduction with a w2.

This isn't insurance companies, the LA fires alone cost $250 billion, ~the gdp of new Zealand. Even if we abolished insurance companies someone's gotta pay for that. In that vein a lot of insurance companies are abolishing themselves, either going under or just leaving the state because Californiais a net loss to most companies, not a profit. So more people go on state insurance which is very expensive, not because the state is "r*ping you" but because it's a pool of houses highly likely to be burned down or flooded in the next decade and you have to have high premiums to cover that.

The problem is climate change and the increasing disasters it's causing. The article even says that premiums are still too low to account for this.

First Street found that today, insurance underprices climate risk for 39 million properties across the continental United States — meaning that for 27% of properties in the country, premiums are too low to cover their climate exposure.

Propublica link to the same article

No offense to op but I think they deserve the clicks more than NYT

Arms without organization are useless. If you're thinking about getting a gun for defense against the government first figure out who you're going to use that gun with.

Individually owning a gun for the sake of owning a gun does nothing for the cause and is just posturing.

but I have to buy one now because there gonna stop selling them

That is gun industry propaganda to get you to buy more guns.

Not many people want to be seen in a nazi car

Eh, people really like VW bugs, and those we're commissioned by hitler and designed by the nazis. They've done a lot better at distancing themselves from their founder, though.

We need to ban advertising for all addictive substances/activities. We've mostly come to terms with the fact that mixing addiction and marketing are horrible for public health when it comes to cigarettes. We need to extend that to gambling, alcohol, Marijuana, hell even sugary drinks.

Even ignoring the public health implications, it's just cruel to recovering addicts. It must suck to see advertisements of attractive people having fun drinking beer if you're a recovering alcoholic and are just trying to forget about it.

I'm opposed to prohibition as it just ends up jailing minorities and empowering the police, but just because we make something legal to consume doesn't mean we have to give it over to the market and capitalism with its perverse incentives for growth at all costs.