bitterbeerfaces

bitterbeerfaces t1_j6nha8a wrote

Yes. Such a pain in the ass.

I have two jobs and because of that payrolls wants to make me pay that $52 a year tax twice, when technically you only have to pay it once.

However, I can't submit a paycheck that shows I am paying it from my full-time job until I actually get paid in the new year. So every year both of my jobs withdrawal $2 towards this tax before I can submit a pay stub to my part-time job.

At tax time I fill out the paperwork and request my $2 refund, as the year prior I paid $54. I get some enjoyment out of knowing that keystone probably spends significantly more than $2 to get me my refund.

It's the little things in life.

27

bitterbeerfaces t1_j6ed0dw wrote

I do agree with you, it is absolutely embarrassing. And it's horrible that the state requires it.

However, (welfare requirements aside) from the perspective of the child, their right to know who their father is supersedes any other person's rights. A close friend of mine is in her 40s and she has no idea who her father is, and her mom won't tell her anything. They are no longer talking because she is in the process of doing a 23 and me to get some information. Please encourage your friend to find out who the dad is. Not because TANF requires it, but because her children deserve to know their history. And they also deserve the financial support of the sperm donor.

8

bitterbeerfaces t1_j5miipt wrote

Please move here and vote democrat!

Harrisburg and Lancaster are nice and both have Amtrak stations. Lancaster is more artistic and has more local shops. Harrisburg is the capital and is pretty nice too.

Both areas have Costco, parks, minor League baseball teams and young professional organizations. As far as stores. You can pretty much find everything. Lancaster has Park City, a very nice mall. And in the Harrisburg area you have the capital city (west shore, not technically Harrisburg, but not far).

−3

bitterbeerfaces t1_j562j5v wrote

I love that my township allows us to pick whoever we want for our trash service. I pay pay my bill yearly in order to get a little bit of a discount, and this past year my trash company raised my bill $100 a year. I shopped around and got last year's rates with another company. I switched.

On the other hand, my husband grew up in the Philadelphia area and his parents never got a trash bill per se and their trash is picked up twice a week.

9

bitterbeerfaces t1_j3af8dl wrote

Thank you. I posted earlier. This is a pet peeve of mine as I think it "cheapens" the registry. I don't like that non-sex offenders are included to begin with. But indecent exposure isn't one of those offenses to begin with.

I think a lot of offenders will use this line to minimize their offense history and unfortunately people buy into it

3

bitterbeerfaces t1_j3aeuel wrote

I don't fully disagree with this. a big problem I have with trusting any data relating to recidivism rates and sex offenders is there is offen a significant delay between the offense and reporting it. I would want to know how long of a period the research covered. Uncle Joe could be molesting the four year old again, but that baby likely wouldn't report that offense until much later in life- if at all.

I do agree that research largely supports the notion that SOs are very amenable to treatment. And that society overestimates their level of danger. But I like the registry. It keeps people aware, and no amount of research will be able to tell how many people were NOT victimized because of the existence of it.

I do wonder where we will be in 20 years as a society and data-wise. Victims of sexual offenses being supported and encouraged to report the offense is a new social phenomenon. I have seen massive change during my time (20 years) in this field.

2