Gold Shaw Farm

My farm dog is a thief

Replying to @not_lacey_elias can a basketball prevent water from freezing in negative temperatures? Let’s find out! #stem #weather #physics

Stitch with @pnw.megz Let’s have a good faith conversation about the inportance of a fair tax system and choosing the proper color hat

PSA: Grease your dog paws in winter

#stitch with @Skylar Holden let’s call this what it is: illegal

#stitch with @magdacious The why behind the egg prices is really important and it’s not just bird flu

It’s time for farm chores on a very cold Vermont morning. #farmlife

Replying to @🏛 Sailor Gala 🩵 it’s a bit DIY but I like it that way

Coyotes visit the farm. The guard dogs say, “Keep moving.”

Let me explain why Vermont public schools are relatively expensive to run #vermont #education

Replying to @Crystal Groves here’s what I did when I went to Canada. Yes, this is satire.

#stitch with @COURIER This Rich McCormick school lunch thing was the final straw for me after a week full of bales being heaped on our poor collective camel.

Replying to @vilathara no, backyard flocks don’t save money. Here’s why #chicken

This is a niche one for all of the hockey fans in Fernie, BC.

The protest in Montpelier protest on 2/5

Replying to @BloodySinDrome my dogs never fight coyotes

Replying to @Rusty Shacklford the short answer is yes.

Replying to @Apple User677492831 This is just an idea. I’m looking for constructive feedback to refine the concept. Here's the breakdown: Revenue Generation: Vermont's scenic appeal attracts second-home buyers, often from out of state. A higher tax on these properties could bring in $212M–$450M annually (depending on implementation). Market Effects: It could stabilize or reduce housing prices by discouraging speculative ownership, potentially freeing up homes for local families. Fairness: Primary residents, especially year-round locals, are less able to absorb rising taxes than second-home owners. This tax could balance the burden. Proposed Features Differential Tax Rate: Higher rates specifically for non-primary residences (e.g., a 1% surcharge). Primary residency would need proof (driver's license, voter registration, etc.). Tiered System: Luxury homes or properties with little occupancy face higher taxes. Encourages efficient use of housing stock. Incentives for Long-Term Rentals: Tax waivers for owners who lease their properties long-term, increasing rental availability. Expanded Revenue Stream: Significant funds for education and social programs. Improved Housing Affordability: Reduced speculative ownership and more homes for locals. Community Stability: Fewer seasonally vacant homes, creating vibrant, year-round communities. I’ve also run revenue scenarios based on current data: Scenario A (Conservative): $212M/year from 55,000 vacation homes. Scenario C (Optimistic): $450M/year if vacant properties are also included. Questions for Feedback Does this approach feel fair to primary residents and second-home owners? What unintended consequences might we be overlooking (e.g., market distortions, reduced tourism)? Are there other uses for this revenue that would better address Vermont’s challenges? Your thoughts are invaluable—whether you're a Vermonter, a second-home owner, or just someone with ideas on tax policy or rural development. Thanks in advance for your insights!

It’s time for cow chores