Its half that, $15.

I think it depends on the state. Virginia for instance used to have a free government run tax filing system, but the tax prep industry got a rep elected who killed it off and punished the state for its insolence with one of the highest e-file rates in the country.

> the companies that try to boost their chances with the lottery by creating multiple applications for the same person

This was already addressed by changing the odds to be per unique candidate, not application, thereby reducing the incentive to game it. More context here: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/uscis-announces...

Unfortunately that doesn't work in practice since the consulting firms submit multiple applications for multiple candidates to get one candidate in. I believe charging extra for each application is a good way to discourage this practice but I'm not sure if $100k is the right number or not. To me it seems a bit too high.

The odds are now per candidate, not per application. If they submit multiple applications, it does not up chances for that candidate in any way.

And yes, it does work, because we have data from the year before this change, to the year after to compare against. The "Eligible Registrations for Beneficiaries with Multiple Eligible Registrations" dropped from 47,314 for FY 2025 to 7,828 for FY 2026. Source: https://www.uscis.gov/archive/uscis-announces-strengthened-i...

> If they submit multiple applications, it does not up chances for that candidate in any way.

I believe the parent commenter's argument is that they instead play the game with multiple people. The increased chance is not per person, but achieved by using more people, each with their own chance.

I don't know if they do this, I merely find the argument itself intriguing with the shift in perspective, and that you as the reader has to keep track of the change in context from the individual one level up.

> the consulting firms submit multiple applications for multiple candidates to get one candidate in.

Wasn't the application linked to the candidate's passport number?

Again, it doesn't matter. You could apply for 100 candidates hoping to get one candidate accepted. For these firms, individual candidates don't matter. They want to get X number of cheap employees into the US per year. And they never file for a green card.

Actually not relevant, the pulling came after threats from the FCC: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimme...

Here is the most detailed analysis so far: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/08/18/the-number

Another way to look at it is every single person, including children, are paying $75 a month for executives of 5000 public companies. Or $190 per month per household. That is significantly more than the average electricity bill ($130/month). Downplaying that shows you are out of touch with the average American.

> Another way to look at it is every single person, including children, are paying $75 a month for executives of 5000 public companies.

No they are not. The economy isn’t a zero-sum game where the only way an executive can get paid is by taking money from a household.

Executive compensation is largely equity based. The mostly equity is new value created in the economy.

Using zero-sum thinking for economic topics like this is very misleading.

Adultery not being a crime goes far beyond its enforcement mechanism.

Did you read the article? The whole thing is about how to actually calculate it, while being conservative through uncertainties. The answer: $3.4 billion.

Paying someone to watch your children full time so that you can do your full time job is inherently classist. Who takes care of the nannies kids?

The solution to "kids are expensive" being to just pay someone lower class to do it is absurd.

> You can also have the nanny watch other kids in the neighborhood if you only have 1 kid.

You're re-inventing daycare here.

> Who takes care of the nannies kids?

Nannies take multiple children (up to 4 here in France) at the same time. So he/she can take his/her own.

Also they only need to be nannied for a couple years, so there's like 48-40 other years of their lives where they can spend the bulk of their focus on the kid they're nannying instead of their own.

The solution to "my garbage is piling up on the street" being to just pay a garbage person to remove it is absurd.

Not to mention, what is the point of having kids if you are just going to pay someone else to raise them?

It's classist that I have to work every day and the owners of capital do not, so what?

There is nothing morally wrong with hiring someone to do labor for you.

This is, as they say, “sanewashing”. Trump is doing this out of a mix of spite and a view of trade as a zero sum game. He may be advised into a path to try to pivot this into a “win” by large scale debt restructuring, but that is not the overarching motive.

Fully agreed. Tariffs are one thing that Trump has always been clear about. He likes them, he sees them as beneficial and now that he has no brakes in this administration he is finally going to try and put them in place.

There is no 4D chess.

I mean it's also clear he doesn't understand them. The poster he posed with today has a column labelled "tarrifs charged to the USA".

The main feature of them was he discovered in his first term he could do them unilaterally without Congress, and his audience would just go along with it anyway.

> Large panes will also bow under that kind of pressure.

They typically have support pillars arrayed throughout the panel to prevent any bowing or flexing.