OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
 

RCM only

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:30:06 -0700, the infamous pyotr filipivich
scrawled the following:

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:34:35 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

True enough. Could we call Bruce and Bob, or Bruce and Daisy....an
Alternative Marraige?...or do they simply remain a couple fags or a
sheep ****er?

Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Okay, that confirms that I am not possessing of an "inquiring
mind."
Marriage is one man, and one woman.

"Who gives a flying phluck how marriage is defined?" I rant.

All _I_ want, as a single person, is to have the same tax breaks and
discounts as couples are allowed. Is that too hard for married folks
to understand? A lot of the marriages are simply for the tax breaks
and different legal status. (i.e: being able to visit their partner
in the hospital) I'm neither gay nor wanting to be married, but I'm
feeling that the current laws are definitely biased toward couples and
want that to be straightened out. As a single white male, I'm feeling
mighty discriminated against. I'm the new minority, damnit! shrug

--
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized
anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
 

On Jun 18, 2:31*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:


All _I_ want, as a single person, is to have the same tax breaks and
discounts as couples are allowed. *Is that too hard for married folks
to understand? *A lot of the marriages are simply for the tax breaks
and different legal status. *(i.e: being able to visit their partner
in the hospital) I'm neither gay nor wanting to be married, but I'm
feeling that the current laws are definitely biased toward couples and
want that to be straightened out. *As a single white male, I'm feeling
mighty discriminated against. I'm the new minority, damnit! *shrug

The reason that married couples have tax breaks is to encourage people
to marry and have children. The children become the future citizens.

Which is why I am against same sex marriages having the same tax
breaks as marriages that may produre children. So naturally I am
against giving the same tax breaks to single people. I agree that all
marriages do not produce children, but you have to accept some simple
rules for tax regulations.

If you are going to give the same tax breaks to everyone, simplify the
tax code and just change the tax rates.

Dan

OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
 

wrote in message
...
On Jun 18, 2:31 pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:


All _I_ want, as a single person, is to have the same tax breaks and
discounts as couples are allowed. Is that too hard for married folks
to understand? A lot of the marriages are simply for the tax breaks
and different legal status. (i.e: being able to visit their partner
in the hospital) I'm neither gay nor wanting to be married, but I'm
feeling that the current laws are definitely biased toward couples and
want that to be straightened out. As a single white male, I'm feeling
mighty discriminated against. I'm the new minority, damnit! shrug


The reason that married couples have tax breaks is to encourage people
to marry and have children. The children become the future citizens.

Which is why I am against same sex marriages having the same tax
breaks as marriages that may produre children. So naturally I am
against giving the same tax breaks to single people. I agree that all
marriages do not produce children, but you have to accept some simple
rules for tax regulations.

If you are going to give the same tax breaks to everyone, simplify the
tax code and just change the tax rates.

The so-called "tax breaks" for married couples filing jointly do not exist,
unless they have children. The filing-jointly rates are essentially the same
as those for two people each making half of the total income. For example,
two people each making $40k pay $12,700 in total; a married couple filing
jointly with the same total income pays $12,694.

There are lots of advantages if they have children, and there are other
savings that result from "sharing" certain deductions, etc. But the breaks
are really for couples with kids. No kids, no significant breaks.

Therefore a gay couple makes out the same as a straight couple without kids.
If either of them adopt, they come out the same that way, too.

--
Ed Huntress

OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
 

On Jun 18, 3:59*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

The so-called "tax breaks" for married couples filing jointly do not exist,
unless they have children. The filing-jointly rates are essentially the same
as those for two people each making half of the total income. For example,
two people each making $40k pay $12,700 in total; a married couple filing
jointly with the same total income pays $12,694.


Ed Huntress

And if one makes $20K and the other makes $60K?


Dan

OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
 

wrote in message
...
On Jun 18, 3:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

The so-called "tax breaks" for married couples filing jointly do not
exist,
unless they have children. The filing-jointly rates are essentially the
same
as those for two people each making half of the total income. For example,
two people each making $40k pay $12,700 in total; a married couple filing
jointly with the same total income pays $12,694.


Ed Huntress

And if one makes $20K and the other makes $60K?


Dan


The wife gets at least 1/2 in either case.

OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
 

wrote in message
...
On Jun 18, 3:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

The so-called "tax breaks" for married couples filing jointly do not
exist,
unless they have children. The filing-jointly rates are essentially the
same
as those for two people each making half of the total income. For example,
two people each making $40k pay $12,700 in total; a married couple filing
jointly with the same total income pays $12,694.


Ed Huntress

And if one makes $20K and the other makes $60K?

$13,953 total for individuals. Look at the tax tables:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

Married couples filing jointly are assumed to split the total income. That's
the way to account for one primary breadwinner, with the other partner
filling a supportive role with a lesser dollar income.

--
Ed Huntress

OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
 

Let the Record show that Larry Jaques
on or about Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:31:29 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
RCM only

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:30:06 -0700, the infamous pyotr filipivich
scrawled the following:

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:34:35 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

True enough. Could we call Bruce and Bob, or Bruce and Daisy....an
Alternative Marraige?...or do they simply remain a couple fags or a
sheep ****er?

Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Okay, that confirms that I am not possessing of an "inquiring
mind."
Marriage is one man, and one woman.

"Who gives a flying phluck how marriage is defined?" I rant.

And who gives a flying duck in a thunder storm how what
constitutes "viable life" is defined? Is hearsay evidence that you
wouldn't want to live like that sufficient to determine that legally,
you're no longer alive?

If we can arbitrarily change cultural definitions because we want
a tax break, why stop at marriage? The progressives at Harvard &
Yale already want to hold off on defining a fetus as human until at
least after post-partium evaluation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
 

On Jun 22, 9:50*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Let the Record show that Larry Jaques
on or about Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:31:29 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:



RCM only

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:30:06 -0700, the infamous pyotr filipivich
scrawled the following:

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:34:35 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:

True enough. *Could we call Bruce and Bob, or Bruce and Daisy....an
Alternative Marraige?...or do they simply remain a couple fags or a
sheep ****er?

Inquiring minds want to know!!!

* * * *Okay, that confirms that I am not possessing of an "inquiring
mind."
* * * *Marriage is one man, and one woman. *

"Who gives a flying phluck how marriage is defined?" I rant.

* * * * And who gives a flying duck in a thunder storm how what
constitutes "viable life" is defined? *Is hearsay evidence that you
wouldn't want to live like that sufficient to determine that legally,
you're no longer alive?

* * * * If we can arbitrarily change cultural definitions because we want
a tax break, why stop at marriage? * The progressives at Harvard &
Yale already want to hold off on defining a fetus as human until at
least after post-partium evaluation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

So, what you're saying is that nothing should ever change? Really.
Nothing? Ever?

OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
 

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:50:28 -0700, the infamous pyotr filipivich
scrawled the following:

Let the Record show that Larry Jaques
on or about Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:31:29 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
RCM only

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:30:06 -0700, the infamous pyotr filipivich
scrawled the following:

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:34:35 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

True enough. Could we call Bruce and Bob, or Bruce and Daisy....an
Alternative Marraige?...or do they simply remain a couple fags or a
sheep ****er?

Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Okay, that confirms that I am not possessing of an "inquiring
mind."
Marriage is one man, and one woman.

"Who gives a flying phluck how marriage is defined?" I rant.

And who gives a flying duck in a thunder storm how what
constitutes "viable life" is defined? Is hearsay evidence that you
wouldn't want to live like that sufficient to determine that legally,
you're no longer alive?

I'm thinking of getting "Do Not Resuscitate" tatooed on my wrist so
they don't "accidentally" waste several million dollars on my
vegetative bod some day.


If we can arbitrarily change cultural definitions because we want
a tax break, why stop at marriage? The progressives at Harvard &
Yale already want to hold off on defining a fetus as human until at
least after post-partium evaluation.

Works for me. ;)

--
The best and safest thing is to keep a balance in your life,
acknowledge the great powers around us and in us. If you can
do that, and live that way, you are really a wise man.
-- Euripides

OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
 

On Jun 23, 12:30*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I'm thinking of getting "Do Not Resuscitate" tatooed on my wrist so
they don't "accidentally" waste several million dollars on my
vegetative bod some day.



Not an entirely bad idea. I have a living will and "medical advance
directive" on file at two local hospitals, two doctor's offices and at
home, with my wife. On my "list of things to do" is to make a
laminated card to attach to my driver's license with a short version,
and a pointer to the copy at the hospital.

But even that's not foolproof. When my mother died this past February,
the nurses in the nursing home tried to revive her with CPR even
though she had made it very clear to all of them, both verbally and in
writing, that she wanted no part of that. I did ask one of the nurses
why they ignored her wishes, and he told me that they liked her too
much, and they just couldn't let her go. It's sad (very sad) that
she's gone, but it's very comforting to know that she didn't suffer at
all. It's disturbing to know that had the CPR been successful, she
would have lived to suffer a lot.

This notion that every breath is precious is a real problem for our
society. We just aren't prepared to accept that life is finite, and to
let it go gracefully. I watched a good friend get tortured in
intensive care for a month before she finally died. On one occasion, I
spoke with the head nurse there and asked her what the point was of
all that they were doing to her. Her reply was, "You don't die here.
You can die in surgery or you can die in your room, but you don't die
here in intensive care." I can't imagine the monetary expense of that
month of keeping her breathing at all costs. I do know that the toll
taken on her family and friends was huge. That was a singular event in
my life, and the one that prompted me to get my papers in order.

And here I am agreeing with Larry Jaques. I guess if you hang around
long enough, you'll see everything.