Gold Shaw Farm

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

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

Replying to @Ramon Herrera Yes, this is my farm. Here’s the real story.

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

Please. I need help here.

It was a weied accident that led to Chicken being the most consumed meat in America #chicken #chickensoftiktok

Let’s have a little chat while I do my farm chores.

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

Last night, I was trying to figure out who is the richest person in the world when I was a kid. For some reason that didn’t seem like common knowledge, and I asked a couple of friends, and they all struggled to name the richest person when they were a kid too. These days I feel like everybody knows that answer. What has changed?

I think financial news outlets should start measuring company market cap in terms of the products they sell

The time goes by so fast. Where does it go?

Replying to @Mylene i need to own the fox coyote mistake i made. Sorry about that. I’ll try to do better. #fox #coyote

Look who made an appearance after the big snowstorm!

Let’s talk about the real conspiracy theory!

Shopping at Home Goods be like…farm edition. #honegoods #homegoodsfinds

Replying to @kitcat7373 Let’s talk about values, voting and criticism because I’ve been biting my tongue on this one for longer than I would like. In a world of digital interactions and scrolling comments, we’re often told to "stay in our lane"—keep our thoughts to ourselves on topics that might feel divisive or “too political.” But isn’t that idea a bit constraining, even for our own sense of identity? At its heart, I believe that speaking up on issues we feel strongly about—even if they sit outside our usual topics—isn’t just an act of self-expression; it’s an assertion of our values. One of the criticisms I frequently encounter, and perhaps you do too, is the idea that some things “shouldn’t be political.” But that perspective tends to overlook the reality that most issues, especially the ones that impact real lives and decisions, do have political undertones. Politics shapes so much about who we are, our freedoms, and how we relate to one another. Remaining silent, or believing something "isn't political," can sometimes mean letting things happen without question, even if those things don’t sit well with us. My videos, my words—each of them reflects my values, just like your comments and your own feedback do for you. When I choose to engage critically with something, it’s not just because I feel like stirring up a reaction but because I believe it matters. This act of engaging, of addressing what I see as contradictions or injustices, is something I value. And if that means stepping “outside my lane,” then I’d rather take the risk than remain passive. In the same vein, I wholeheartedly believe you should share your views if you disagree with what I post. However, we both need to understand that by sharing these perspectives openly, we’re each putting our thoughts up for critique. Just as you can comment on my videos, others can—and likely will—respond to your words too. Critique isn’t always comfortable, but it’s part of what makes free expression meaningful. In that way, none of us are entirely “immune” to criticism, and maybe that’s exactly as it should be. So, what I encourage you to do—and what I commit to doing myself—is to look beyond the lanes we’ve been assigned, whether by society, by followers, or even by our own sense of what’s "safe." Maybe by venturing outside our comfort zones, we’ll discover new perspectives or reinforce our beliefs. And if not? Well, at least we’ll have spoken our truth.

Somebody shared this message with me a few years back and it made a massive difference in my perspective and I wanted to pass it along to you this year.