The year begins on January 1st per Julius Caesar's calendar reform of 46BC, because in Rome the year was called by the name of the elected consuls, and consuls were elected on January first. So basically, up until this change it was confusing for the Romans to call the year by the current consuls' names, though actually the current year ran from March to March (starting at the equinox).
How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year
51–60 of 63 posts
Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year
#52A decent case can be made for March 1 as the start of the year. With March 1 as the start of the year the extra day in leap years then comes on the last day of the year. This makes dealing with leap years when calculating the day of the week from a date simpler. It also makes the names of September, October, November, and December make sense. Those names come from the Roman words for 7, 8, 9, and 10, which were the n…
The change was made by Caesar's reform of calendar in 46BC. January first was the date of consular elections, and Romans didn't used year number ab urbe condita ("since the foundation of Rome") regularly in daily life, instead they called the years by the running consuls' names. Therefore it made more sense for Romans to start the year at January first.
Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year
#53It is absurd and stupid to have the beginning year not also be the beginning of a month. (Same for weeks to months, things a dumb feature of our calendar). But December vs March is totally arbitrary, right?
When you base the first of anything based on the phases of the moon, you'll more often not be aligned with the 1st of any month. Basing a calendar on the phases of the moon doesn't line up with the full orbit around the sun, so something has to change somewhere. ~365.25 / ~29.53 doesn't work out to a whole number, so whatchagunnado? Leap seconds and leap years! Perfect!
Yes, and that's why the month of Ramadan in the Muslim calendar shifts by about two weeks every year, because it's a lunar calendar. But this doesn't apply here.
Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year
#54Isn’t this still sort of a thing? The fiscal new year vs the calendar new year?
Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year
#55The article mentions parliament may rival doctor Who. However, the Eleven-day Empire appears in Doctor Who. That organisation has set up their base in a time loop consisting of those days that this law excluded from the official calendar. Thus, Dr Who very explicitly has matched this parlimentary act, I suppose.
Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year
#56Engaging with TFA's thesis: occasionally, it's correct for institutions to insist on law over lore. For one, that lore might be just as artificial or short-lived or "mistaken" (as much as these things can be) as anything seeking to replace it - as some comments have mentioned, the "customary" start of the year was itself imposed by Caesar amid a history of a March start. It might also be in society's best interests that cooler heads determine a particular course. The "lore" of the demihumanity of certain populations takes hold popularly, from time to time, for example. The law prevents, in the worst cases, slaughter (or builds parameters for punishment and future deterrence after the fact).
Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year
#57Isn’t this still sort of a thing? The fiscal new year vs the calendar new year?
I came here to say that. The US government's fiscal year runs October to September.
Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe IBM pay its UK workers on the 6th because at one point they wanted to move pay day to as early as possible without paying more than 12 times in a tax year. This means that the day lots of people get paid in 2025 has been set by a deliberate simplification Julius Ceasar made in 46BC. That's technical debt that lasted a long time.
Looking at the names of the months, September is the 9th month and October is the 10th? December is the 12th? Those names changed to those numberings roughly about the same time, and is also tech debt.
I just looked that up (in 4o with Search), and it happened long before ceasar made the Julian calendar:
“Your observation about the misalignment between the numerical prefixes of the later months and their positions in the calendar is astute. This discrepancy arises from the evolution of the Roman calendar over time.
Original Roman Calendar: • Structure: The early Roman calendar, traditionally attributed to Romulus, the founder of Rome, comprised 10 months totaling 304 days. The year began in March (Martius) and concluded in December (December), followed by a winter period that was not assigned to any month. • Month Names and Numerical Order: 1. Martius (March) 2. Aprilis (April) 3. Maius (May) 4. Junius (June) 5. Quintilis (fifth month) 6. Sextilis (sixth month) 7. September (seventh month) 8. October (eighth month) 9. November (ninth month) 10. December (tenth month)
Introduction of January and February: • Reforms by Numa Pompilius: To align the calendar more accurately with the lunar year, the second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius, is traditionally credited with adding two months: • Januarius (January) • Februarius (February) • Impact on Month Positions: These additions shifted the original months from their positions, making September the ninth month, October the tenth, and so forth. Despite this shift, the original names were retained, leading to the current numerical misalignment.
Renaming of Quintilis and Sextilis: • Quintilis to July: In 44 BCE, following the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Roman Senate renamed Quintilis to July in his honor, as it was the month of his birth. • Sextilis to August: Later, in 8 BCE, the month Sextilis was renamed August to honor Emperor Augustus. To match the length of July, a day was added to August, resulting in both months having 31 days.
Clarifying Misconceptions: • Insertion of Months: The renaming of Quintilis and Sextilis did not involve the insertion of new months but rather the renaming of existing ones. Therefore, this action did not disrupt the numerical sequence of the months. • Retention of Numerical Names: The numerical names for September through December persisted even after calendar reforms and the renaming of months. This retention is why there is a discrepancy between their names and their positions in the modern calendar.
Conclusion:
The misalignment between the numerical prefixes of the months September through December and their positions in the calendar results from historical reforms and the retention of traditional names despite changes in the calendar’s structure. The renaming of months to honor Julius Caesar and Augustus did not disrupt the numerical naming convention; instead, it was the earlier addition of January and February that shifted the original positions of the months, leading to the current nomenclature.”
Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year
#59A decent case can be made for March 1 as the start of the year. With March 1 as the start of the year the extra day in leap years then comes on the last day of the year. This makes dealing with leap years when calculating the day of the week from a date simpler. It also makes the names of September, October, November, and December make sense. Those names come from the Roman words for 7, 8, 9, and 10, which were the n…
The change was made by Caesar's reform of calendar in 46BC. January first was the date of consular elections, and Romans didn't used year number ab urbe condita ("since the foundation of Rome") regularly in daily life, instead they called the years by the running consuls' names. Therefore it made more sense for Romans to start the year at January first.
Sounds like the Japanese Emperor Era system.
Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
US tax return forms/documentation is due April 15, but the taxes needed to be paid by the previous Jan 15 (minus a several month reprieve for taxes on income that exceeds your previous year's income) on April 15 the taxes on your first quarter of the current year are also due.
Jan 15 is quarterly estimates for those who have them. Annual taxes are due April 15 (as well as Q1 estimates).
You are wrong, I was right.
the January 15 quarterly estimate is for the last quarter of the previous year, let's call it 2024. April 15 2025 is when you file your tax return for the 2024, but you HAVE ALREADY PAID OR HAD WITHHELD YOUR TAXES FOR 2024.
If you have earned more wages in 2024 than you did in 2023, you will only have to have paid the same as you ultimately owed in 2023 for 2024, and in that case you will have the chance to cough up the remainder on April 15, 2025, but that is nowhere near close to saying that is when you 2025 taxes are "due" as you are claiming.