It Allowance: Fill & Download for Free

Max tax will be around 450000 considering the person has no investments and is getting no benefits that makes it to 37500 per month in TDSConsidering that he has utilised his limit of 1.5 laks in 80c he has an nps of 50k per annum his head is one lakh per annum medical benefits 15k and transport allowance 19200 as per gov rules around 350000 that makes it to 40k per monthHope this answer helps

At first, I thought, well, there’s a certain Darwinian thing going on here, along the lines of the pastor who said God was bigger than the virus and then died from it.Do you want to spread an airborne virus? Because this is how you do it. (Image: NBC News.)I thought, also, that this is an excellent way to demonstrate why distancing rules and lockdowns have to be enacted: Way to prove the point of the very rules you’re protesting."We can get this rally done and stay within the social distancing guidelines,” Marian Sheridan, a Michigan Conservative Coalition co-founder, said in a statement ahead of the rally. "Citizens are frankly tired of being treated like babies. As adults, we now know what needs to be done to stay safe."'Lock her up!': Anti-Whitmer coronavirus lockdown protestors swarm Michigan CapitolWhereupon a bunch of dudes promptly proved her wrong — they don’t know what needs to be done to stay safe. Pro tip: Firearms don’t protect against viral infections.Speaking to Michigan NBC affiliate WOOD-TV, one woman attending suggested she didn't entirely trust the social distancing recommendations being made by "the so-called scientists" like Dr. Anthony Fauci, adding that she believes "very strongly in herd immunity."Right. Who needs “science” when you have this herd and its immunity. Immunity to what exactly is left unsaid, but … immunity to medical advice maybe?But then I thought to myself, stop being such a cynical ass. Here’s the thing: These people are going to interact with others — family, friends, co-workers, random people at the grocery store and the range — applying the same level of concern they are showing on the capitol steps there.And that makes it other people’s problem. Of which, no, I don’t approve. Rights come with responsibilities. It makes no sense to loudly protest for the one while blatantly disregarding the other.Addendum #2! This comment needs special attention, because it’s a perfect example of how you’d try to give the unreasonable a veneer of reason. If you were in the business of propaganda and disinformation — I’m not saying this particular commenter is, but if you were — this is how you’d do it:Typical.Starts off with the exasperated sigh of someone who knows better. Note the lack of specificity — typical of whom?One side completely misrepresented, the other side not even mentioned as if they’ve done nothing wrong. In your effort to belittle the protesters, you’ve missed a bigger point. I’ll get to that later.Moves right along to dressing up a false equivalence as an appeal to fairness. Note again the lack of specificity — who is the “other side” to the armed protestors on the capitol steps, bearing signs comparing the governor to Hitler? What is it they’ve done wrong? This has to be left vague, because, of course, there is no equivalent “other side”, and listing what the governor and the state has actually done would make the false part of false equivalence painfully obvious.Gov Whitmer of Michigan has offered no scientific rationale for some of the enacted restrictions, which is a large factor in the start of these protest. You don’t even mention this.This frames the poster as on the side of science while making it appear as though the governor is not, instead making arbitrary use of government power. Note again the lack of specificity — some restrictions. The poster, if pressed, can thus fall back on a short list of restrictions that reasonable people disagree on, in the process changing the subject: Armed protestors on the capitol steps, bearing signs comparing the governor to HitlerSelf-governance: Whitmer, Trump, Dewine, Cuomo, Bowser, Newsome or any other elected leader in this nation do not have absolute control over us. They can present facts as they know them at the time and request that we observe their recommendations.Here we go from the false equivalence to the false dilemma, another stock-in-trade sleight of hand. Poster sets up the situation as if it were a choice between absolute control on the one hand versus personal responsibility on the other. Totalitarianism = ugly. Personal responsibility = good. You can only choose one.There are some narrow instances where the government may have power to quarantine someone at home, but that cannot be applied to those who are not ill. I know, how can we know whether they are ill or not? Lack of availability of testing is no excuse for the stripping of liberties.The veneer of reasonableness is preserved by acknowledging there are some narrow instances, while distracting from the sleight of hand, this time equating the restrictions enacted in Michigan to quarantine. Blink and you miss it. The word quarantine is there to invoke a dystopian imagery, but the Michigan restrictions are not equivalent to quarantine. If pressed, poster has an escape hatch, however — we can then derail the discussion and change the subject by haggling over the definition of quarantine.Now, here is what you miss:Thus framing the poster as having a more comprehensive overview and better understanding of the situation.The infection, given the fact that it’s highly contagious and that half those infected are likely to exhibit little or no symptoms, means that the number of people exposed is orders of magnitude greater than any measured cases. What some of us instinctively knew is now being confirmed through antibody testing.Throwing out numbers that, if taken at face value, make the argument look reasonable. If pressed, poster will have some support for the “half” figure, and has taken care to add wiggle room by adding “likely” and “little to no”, so that, if pressed, the discussion can veer off topic to quibble over the exact numbers.But look closely. He then proceeds to infer that the number of exposed is orders of magnitude greater than any measured cases. Where did “order of magnitude” come from? Blink and you miss it.The reference to antibody testing is also misleading. It appears to frame the poster as relying on empirical evidence, when in fact he or she is glossing over the problems that (a) antibody testing is barely available yet, (b) they suffer from reliability problems, meaning both false positives and false negatives, and (c) the sample set is heavily biased in favor of people who have had the disease or have been or believe they have been exposed.The government, publishing forecasted death tolls and shortages of beds, and ventilators that were WAY OFF, like 1000% wrong, destroyed any credibility they had.A this point poster appears to be slipping out of character. The all caps, “1,000% wrong”, and “destroyed” — the entire sentence — just changes the tone completely to juvenile hyperbole. This is odd. Where are we going with this?The argument that social distancing was more effective than they first thought, is more confessed lack of competence.Attempts to discredit the competence of the other side, however vaguely defined. Look closely — he’s setting up as evidence that the other side’s recommendations were more effective than expected, thus if you think it through reinforcing the argument for social distancing.When free-thinking citizens feel lied to, and see that things aren’t as bad as they were told it would be, by people at all levels of government, what did you think would happen?What do you think will happen next time?Then we move on to a classic false premise. When … implies, of course that this happened. There’s a bit of framing going on there, too, with the “free-thinking” bit, setting his “side” up as the side of free thought and the other as, one has to assume, the opposite.This one is a bit of a slip-up, because it’s entirely too easy to point out that the actual head of the actual Federal government, whose arguments the poster is propagating, has in fact lied, and lied repeatedly, in the service of doing the polar opposite of persuading the American people things are bad.They are watching with their own eyes, loss of economic stability, loss of freedoms (some of which have no scientific or medical justification), and future economic hardship, and almost none of what they were told they’d see (death, overrun hospitals), and you expect (demand) them (like you) to trust and obey?Here we get a veritable showcase of loaded language. The entire paragraph is also predicated on two fallacies. One, that the alternative does not cause economic hardship. Two, that death and overrun hospitals have not happened, therefore strict measures are unnecessary, glossing over that (a) where there have not been overrun hospitals and high numbers of dead it’s because the very measures the poster argues against are in fact working, and (b) there have been overrun hospitals and high numbers of death — it’s very publicly happening as we speak in several U.S. cities.Perhaps an overreaction by the government can’t be helped in a situation like this. Given the speed of the virus moving around the world and the apparent death rate seen in other countries, but that isn’t license to make sport of those who sense this overreaction and demand that it be reversed (which they have a right to do).We briefly strike a conciliatory tone to preserve the air of reasonableness, then move on to setting up as victims of undeserved ridicule the gentlemen who bunched up on the steps of the capitol, heavily armed and bearing signs comparing the state government to the Third Reich.instead of demanding accountability from those who have been charged with leading, you choose to make fun of regular Americans.Here, poster frames my answer as making fun of regular Americans. Just to remind everyone who the topic of my answer is:Are these regular Americans? Of course not. Poster is using that phrase to paint my answer, and by extension me, as being condescending to “regular” folks — another way to accuse the other side of being elitist without using that word.There are parallels to this in Florida (where I live) regarding hurricanes. Time and again forecasters get it wrong. Not only the track and landfall, but in the magnitude of wind and surge. People see this and naturally discount future predictions. There is great cost associated, we need to get it right.This seems like a solid analogy until you look more closely. Weather patterns are inherently hard to predict. The alternative, in poster’s example, would be to err on the side of underestimating, and you can draw your own conclusions what the consequences of that could be. More importantly, it is not an analogy to the current situation. By January and March the U.S. government did not need to rely on predictions because we had empirical data from countries that were already hit. Observing that what happened in Italy, France, and Spain was likely to happen here as well is about as solid a prediction as you can get — it’s analogous to estimating the path and strength of the hurricane as it makes landfall.In the end, I would think it is a waste of your education to sit down at your keyboard and trash people who actually would take up arms and fight for your freedoms, may already have, or have ancestors that did.Any thoughtless idiot can do that. It doesn’t take a journo degree.We cap it off with the obligatory ad hominem, just barbed enough to squeak by the BNBR policy. Typically, this serves the purpose of baiting the respondent to lose their temper, setting up the comeback for the poster that you seem angry or see, they’re just arguing emotionally.I’m no expert, but Dima Vorobiev, how would you grade this poster’s effort?(https://www.quora.com/Do-you-approve-of-anti-lockdown-protests-in-Michigan-on-April-15th/answer/Per-Jorgensen-1/comment/137590766)Addendum! The comment threads being the gift that keeps on giving, we have this contribution:lockdowns violate our founding documents simple as that your anti freedom. your on the wrong side when will you relise that this cure is worse than the problem at hand.When asked if, for example, 5 million Americans were to be infected, how many would need intensive care to survive compared to how many intensive-care beds and ventilators are available:who cares its that you reason to be anti freedom. sad. i dont play what if lib games i play what is now ones.When I asked whether not being allowed to defecate in the drinking water supply is a restriction on one’s freedoms — obliging commenter’s refusal to engage in “what if lib games — I was informed that …im going to say i dont give a [f**k] how many people die or if it is even myself. god wants me ill go. now yu try to take my freedom i wont tolerate it and fight lile my greet greet granddaddys did in 1775–1781 then again in 1840 then in 1861–1865 1898 1917–1918 1941–1945 1950–51 1965–71 hun my family knows all about freedom we even have a few in arlington. you want to add 2020 keep this up sweety.The threats of violence were, of course, sweetened with both “hun” and “sweety”, so I took it to be endearing.https://www.quora.com/Do-you-approve-of-anti-lockdown-protests-in-Michigan-on-April-15th/answer/Per-Jorgensen-1/comment/136350289And that, folks, is how you contribute to the spread of a pandemic and get people killed.Addendum #3, Son of Addendum: A commenter has honored me with a place among the elite!I have no interest in debating a smug elitist like Per.This said in a response to my answer. Well played, sir: Nothing says “debating this is beneath me” like jumping into the ”debate” feet first.I am honored that commenter considers me elite, though.The protest is clearly focused on government tyranny as some government officials (primarily democrats) have used the covid pandemic to abuse their authority. Support of the 2nd amendment for protection of the people against this tyranny is reason for display of the firearms.Because tyranny never starts with armed mobs on the stepsof democratically elected institutions. No, it starts worth said democratically elected government imposing restriction to slow the spread of a disease that is actively killing people and filling hospitals to capacity.Even as ignorant and obtuse as this author portrays himself, regular American citizens do understand.Speaking as a clearly irregular, I have to say it's very rare for me out here in the Kansas City metro area to see guys like those parading their long guns and tactical great around while carrying signs comparing the governor to Hitler, and I can't say I've seen it anywhere else in the U.S. either, but maybe that's what regular Americans do everywhere I haven't been.And since he is of European descent I encourage him to return to his mother country where he can be around his kind of people.The obligatory go back where you came from of you don't like it.Ignoring, of course, that it's the guys on the Capitol steps who are angrily protesting that they're not happy with the decisions of the majority-elected government and implying they'll resort to armed resistance off they don't get what they want.If they're so unhappy with the U.S., why doesn't commenter think they should refrain from criticism and go back where they came from? They do look a lot like they have European ancestry.Oh and I’ve traveled tge world and lived for years in Europe so don’t bother giving me your condescending attitude about Americans. I’m pretty sure if it wasn’t for us regular Americans your homeland would be speaking German today.And the obligatory we liberated you and look at the thanks we get.Condescension, of course, being something only Europeans can do. When someone like for instance commenter here does it, it's totally different — it's just speaking truth to the elitists.Stay tuned for more delightful comments.

Yes, we really DO need Roe.I came of age in the 60’s and for much of my college years, if you got pregnant, you had a couple of choices: travel to countries such as Sweden where abortion was legal (financially out of reach for all but the wealthiest people and certainly for students), find a provider who would perform an illegal abortion (some of those providers might even have something to do with the medical profession if one was really lucky) in some garage or kitchen somewhere or self-abort through all sorts of dangerous and draconian means. The first option was out of reach, the second two could be life-threatening. Several friends of mine had abortions done by a chiropractor on his kitchen table in Topanga Canyon. My best friend hemorrhaged following hers, and when I took her to my OB-GYN for treatment, he threatened to report her to the police. She was, from that time forward, unable to have children.I was lucky. I was the last in my crowd to get pregnant, so I had the luxury of having an abortion performed at a hospital, where insurance covered - get this - an overnight stay the night before the procedure so you wouldn’t have to be inconvenienced by getting up in the middle of the night to check in by 5 a.m.! Ah, the good old days of insurance coverage!The pro-life movement has been trying to overturn Roe since it was handed down, but, really, when you examine the pro-life movement, they’re not pro-life at all - they’re simply pro-birth. Once you have the baby, the fact that it’s a product of rape, or incest, or the fact that you got fired for being pregnant and can’t support yourself and the baby, or that the baby grows up unwanted and has a greater chance of suffering abuse (even death) at the hands of care-takers, and a smaller chance of succeeding academically or financially and becoming a contributing member of society, well, that’s on you, lady. True pro-life advocates would fight to provide pre-natal and post-natal care, food, employment, etc. for these children and their families.And I’m not pro-abortion by any means. It was not a decision I undertook casually or without great thought and often thoughts of regret. The reality is, that I was not in any position to give a child a good chance at a decent life, and I thank G-d that Roe was there for me to allow me ACCESS to SAFE and LEGAL abortion. Those are the key words.Many states have been slowly trying to claw Roe back - for example, requiring abortion clinics to have on staff only those doctor with admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 20 minutes from the clinic. Many states have only ONE abortion clinic. Many states require that their clients be given literature describing the horrible pain the fetus will suffer, or the high risk of breast cancer that will result to the mother, and other “facts,” none of which are true. Many states require a waiting period, which results in a pregnant woman having to take time off work to visit the clinic, wait for 2 days and then have the procedure. Many times, there are so few staff members that a woman gets dangerously close to the end of the first trimester because she can’t get an appointment, and the deeper into the second trimester you get, the dicier it becomes, legally and physically.Some states are passing laws that will criminalize abortion the moment Roe is overturned. Other states are liberalizing their own abortion laws in anticipation of SCOTUS deciding that abortion is now up to the states.But imagine if you are poor, and living in a state where abortion is no longer legal. Where does the money come for this mythical “travel to a state where it’s legal” crap (forgive me). Where does the new job come from when you get fired for having to take so many days off work - or the income to replace the money you lost during your travel to another state.And imagine if you live in a state where abortion has been criminalized after the fall of Roe - where will you get access to that “copper IUD which operates as an abortifactant once you’re pregnant but not before” or the “abortion pills” one of the answers talks about - those would be outlawed, and the people who supplied them would be prosecuted. As for ordering abortion drugs off the internet, well, folks, let’s just say you wouldn’t be able to log on to Walgreen’s or CVS for them. You’d have to buy them from questionable sources (and they may or may not contain the actual medication they advertise) or — travel to another state where it’s legal to get a prescription, fill the prescription there and take the pills there (because there really are some places where state legislatures are trying to criminalize MISCARRIAGES - even of desperately wanted pregnancies!).I was honored, a couple of years ago, to sign an amicus brief in the Whole Women’s Health case when it was argued before SCOTUS. The brief I signed was signed by lawyers, state legislators and other legal professionals, many of whom were in seriously dire circumstances as a result of their unwanted pregnancies. Many of us have gone on to have and raise wonderful, WANTED children, and none of us didn’t feel some regret at our decision. But, as was stated in the brief, the right to safe, legal abortion puts women on an equal footing by allowing us to choose when and if we start families; it allows us the ability to escape poverty, abuse and other crises. It allows us to live our lives.Yes, we fought hard for it and we desperately need it.NOTE: Thank you to those who up-voted, and thank you to those who posted comments. I certainly expected there would be comments, as I answered the question from a position of being an extremely liberal, pro-choice individual, and I did not expect everyone who read my answer to agree with my position. However, there are a couple of things I felt I should point out which have come out in the comments:First: Only a small handful of states permit abortion-on-demand (i.e., no requirement of showing rape, incest, danger to health of mother or baby, etc.) beyond the first trimester, and the number of actual abortions performed even in those states during the second trimester is really quite low.Second: Women seeking abortions during (and after) the second trimester generally fall into one of three categories: (a) a woman who has just found out that she is suffering from a medical condition that would jeopardize her life/health or that of the baby were she to carry the fetus to term (a mother’s cancer diagnosis, for example) or (b) a woman (or couple) who has just found out that the fetus suffers from an abnormality which is incompatible with viability (e.g., anencephaly - where the baby literally has only a brain stem, no other brain parts), in which case, to force the woman to carry to term a fetus that she knows will be still-born seems incredibly cruel, and would carry possible health risks both physical and mental, or (c) a very young woman - possibly a victim of rape or incest or one who fears abuse if the pregnancy is disclosed. She may hide the fact of the pregnancy until the second trimester when it becomes impossible not to notice - or, she may require parental or court permission to seek an abortion, which may delay the procedure. There are other situations, as well, such as women who don’t realize they’re pregnant, but these are even more rare than the other categories. So to say that women are just not making up their minds as to whether they wish to give birth until late in the game is, I think, a mis-characterization of most women’s situations that does no one justice.Third: Partial birth abortion (a totally gruesome procedure involving the severing of the spinal chord of an otherwise viable fetus and then aborting it) is illegal in the U.S. per Federal Law.Even states where restrictions on abortions after 24 weeks are being lifted are NOT - repeat NOT contemplating infanticide, notwithstanding the rather awkward explanation offered for the recent bill introduced in VA by the sponsor of the bill and Gov. Northam (who seems to have developed a knack for awkward explanations in the last several days). Removal of a viable fetus from the mother “just before birth” is not called an abortion, it’s called a Cesarean Section and it results in a normal, live birth. If the child is born with medical issues, Governor Northam’s intent was that the parents and the doctors would get together to discuss prognosis, treatment options, etc. No one in their right mind is suggesting (or would suggest) that the infant be killed.