Posts by Hannah Allen58

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the concept of the "neutral arbiter." You know the type—the high-level professional, the career civil servant, or the specialist who is supposed to exist in this vacuum of pure data and objective truth, completely insulated from the chaotic, ego-driven theater of politics. For a long time, there was this unspoken social contract that these people would keep their private frustrations, their personal irritations with leadership, and their subjective judgments tucked away behind a professional veneer. The idea was that as long as they were performing their duties, their personal opinion of the people they worked for shouldn't matter to the public.

But that contract feels like it’s been shredded.

Lately, it seems like we are entering an era where the private thoughts of public officials are being treated like ammunition. It’s not just about whether they did their jobs well or poorly; it’s about the "behind the curtain" drama. We are seeing more and more instances where the personal contempt a professional holds for a political figure is brought into the light, often through leaks or the release of private records. And honestly, it makes me wonder: can anyone actually remain "objective" when they are stuck in a room with someone they fundamentally find incompetent or even irrational?

I used to think that if a scientist or a policy expert was being critical of a leader, it was a sign of integrity. I thought, "Good, they aren't just a mouthpiece for whoever is in the Oval Office." But now, the lines are so blurred that it’s hard to tell where legitimate professional disagreement ends and personal loathing begins. If a professional starts viewing a leader through the lens of personal distaste—calling them names in private or viewing their actions through a filter of "how can I deal with this person's ego"—does that inevitably poison the well of their professional output?

On the flip side, there’s the issue of transparency versus privacy. We demand that these figures be transparent, but when they are *too* transparent—when their private journals or candid, unfiltered thoughts are weaponized by political opponents—it creates this weird paradox. If you're a high-level official, do you even dare to have an opinion anymore? Or do you just become a hollowed-out version of yourself, a walking PR statement, because you know that any flicker of human frustration will be used to dismantle your entire career?

I see it happening in so many sectors now. It’s not just health or science; it’s intelligence, it’s law enforcement, it’s the military. We are seeing a massive breakdown in the "professional distance" that used to define the bureaucracy. It feels like the "adults in the room" are increasingly being forced to choose between being authentic (and getting slaughtered in the press) or being robotic (and being accused of being complicit or "deep state").

It makes me skeptical of the "expert" as a concept. If the expert is just another person with biases, tempers, and personal vendettas, then the pedestal we put them on is built on sand. We want them to be gods of logic, but they are just humans working in high-pressure, high-ego environments. When that human element leaks out, it doesn't just hurt the individual; it erodes the public's trust in the institution they represent. Once you realize the person giving the advice might actually despise the person they are advising, the "science" or the "data" starts to look like just another piece of a much larger, much messier psychological struggle.

Is it even possible for a career professional to maintain total psychological distance from a leader they find fundamentally unfit, or is the "neutral expert" just a myth we tell ourselves to feel safe?

Sarah Barrett6 said:So, let's say I start my own small business and basically just employ myself. Aside from the obvious stuff—my salary and the payroll taxes—what does it actually cost to keep the lights on? Like, am I looking at monthly taxes, fees, or some kind of government tribute? Also, how does income tax work? If I finish a job, send an invoice, and get paid... how much of that check does Uncle Sam grab?

If you launch a sole proprietorship, you're usually exempt from Chamber of Commerce dues for the first year.

When you register your business, you have to tell the IRS your projected income. Based on that, they’ll send you a bill for estimated quarterly tax payments.
You'll also get a bill from City Hall for local business fees based on what you expect to make, though they usually double-check those numbers after you've been running for about three months.

Since you're operating as a sole proprietor, you aren't subject to corporate income tax—you deal with individual income tax instead—unless you hit certain thresholds or decide to incorporate on purpose.

As long as your gross revenue stays under $28333, you don't have to worry about sales tax; the government doesn't take a cut of that and you aren't required to collect it (but keep in mind, you can't claim any input credits either. To put it simply, sales tax and all its headaches won't touch you until you're pulling in more than $28333).

Basically, every month you'll be paying those estimated income tax installments to the IRS and your local fees to City Hall.
Then, at the end of the year, you've got to settle up:
The final income tax based on your tax bracket, which looks like this:
Once you figure out your taxable income (that's total revenue minus business expenses), you subtract the standard deduction, which is currently $6400 (this goes up if you have dependents, and obviously if you aren't already working a full-time job elsewhere). On whatever is left, you pay:
15% on amounts up to $12800
25% on the range from 38401-$19200
35% on anything over 57601-$57600
+ state taxes (depending on which state you call home)

You take that total tax owed and subtract what you already paid in estimated payments; that leftover amount is what you owe.
On top of that, you're on the hook for local municipal fees, which vary depending on your industry, where you're located, and how much you actually earned and paid in estimates throughout the year.

So, bottom line:
In year one, you'll be paying monthly estimated taxes and your local City Hall fees. Then at year-end, you pay the difference for both.
Starting in year two, you'll be paying estimated taxes, City Hall fees, AND Chamber of Commerce dues every month, plus settling up any remaining balances at the end of the year.

Cheers :-)

yoga and meditation 👍