(06-26-2019, 04:10 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2019, 02:47 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure if you know what reparations means.
The bill that Pocahontas introduced implies that "married" gay individuals were somehow "wronged" via the income tax system outside the statute of limitations.
Much like the student loan debt forgiveness scheme it's nothing more than pandering and vote-buying.
And here we come back to the philosophical impasse between us. I don't care who you sleep with, and government shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. You...well...do.
Contrary to your comment, I have nothing against gay individuals. I don't have a problem with them having legal "unions" for legal purposes. I do have a problem with calling it a "marriage" for personal (religious) reasons. We won't discuss that since discussion of religion is against board rules. The only thing that I will say about it is it's just my opinion and what I believe.
I do have a problem when you have a candidate running for President trying to pander and buy votes from a select small percentage of the population. Once individuals are
legally "married" then they should be able to file their taxes just like any heterosexual couple
after they are "married". They (gay couples) should not be allowed to amend their taxes
outside the statute of limitations in order to claim a different status under former year's tax law in order to get a benefit and "free money" from the federal government. That's what the bill introduced by Pocahontas specifically states and by definition that is paying "reparations".
(06-26-2019, 04:58 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2019, 04:10 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]And here we come back to the philosophical impasse between us. I don't care who you sleep with, and government shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. You...well...do.
Contrary to your comment, I have nothing against gay individuals. I don't have a problem with them having legal "unions" for legal purposes. I do have a problem with calling it a "marriage" for personal (religious) reasons. We won't discuss that since discussion of religion is against board rules. The only thing that I will say about it is it's just my opinion and what I believe.
I do have a problem when you have a candidate running for President trying to pander and buy votes from a select small percentage of the population. Once individuals are legally "married" then they should be able to file their taxes just like any heterosexual couple after they are "married". They (gay couples) should not be allowed to amend their taxes outside the statute of limitations in order to claim a different status under former year's tax law in order to get a benefit and "free money" from the federal government. That's what the bill introduced by Pocahontas specifically states and by definition that is paying "reparations".
Pocahontas has as much chance of being President as I do. She's too extreme to the left for even the Democrats to run. What I fear is the day AOC turns 35. There could be an Obama-like surge behind her if she hasn't been chased out of Congress yet.
(06-26-2019, 04:25 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2019, 04:10 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]And here we come back to the philosophical impasse between us. I don't care who you sleep with, and government shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. You...well...do.
I want reparations for the 20 years I filed taxes before I had kids and got the child tax credit. Where are my reparations TJ???
Did you have kids for those 20 years? No? You don't qualify for the credit.
Jussie Smollett is going to cash in.
(06-26-2019, 08:16 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-25-2019, 10:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In my opinion, there is a crisis, and there are two types of people behaving badly that create and perpetuate the crisis.
I've heard of students taking out the maximum loan amount every semester even though they needed far less, and spending the difference on pub crawls and fraternity dues and other non-essentials.
And we all know that colleges and universities, especially private for profit ones, are charging tuition that is way out of line to the value of the education. Charging tens of thousands of dollars for licensing in fields like dental hygienist and radiology tech - stuff the community college down the road can train you for, for much less money.
I think we can tackle both bad behaviors with a simple, elegant change:
1) student loans get repaid based on income for a pre-determined number of years
2) if there is still money owed after the years are over, the college or the university pays the lender that amount.
Colleges will be more careful about who they admit, and how much they charge, with these two simple changes.
And the taxpayer won't need to be on the hook as much.
I have a much more elegant solution. Get the government out of the student loan business. If we do that, then lenders will be much more careful whom they lend to, and for what courses. Colleges will be forced to control their expenses and tuition rates, or they won't have any students.
That's a good red meat motto, but it exposes ignorance of the fact that the government is necessarily involved in every type of loan.
If someone fails to pay up, the lender must call on a judge to force them to pay up. This is true of primitive and modern societies.
All I'm trying to discuss is the guidelines that the judge should use when he or she is called on.
(06-26-2019, 05:04 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2019, 04:58 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Contrary to your comment, I have nothing against gay individuals. I don't have a problem with them having legal "unions" for legal purposes. I do have a problem with calling it a "marriage" for personal (religious) reasons. We won't discuss that since discussion of religion is against board rules. The only thing that I will say about it is it's just my opinion and what I believe.
I do have a problem when you have a candidate running for President trying to pander and buy votes from a select small percentage of the population. Once individuals are legally "married" then they should be able to file their taxes just like any heterosexual couple after they are "married". They (gay couples) should not be allowed to amend their taxes outside the statute of limitations in order to claim a different status under former year's tax law in order to get a benefit and "free money" from the federal government. That's what the bill introduced by Pocahontas specifically states and by definition that is paying "reparations".
Pocahontas has as much chance of being President as I do. She's too extreme to the left for even the Democrats to run. What I fear is the day AOC turns 35. There could be an Obama-like surge behind her if she hasn't been chased out of Congress yet.
(06-26-2019, 04:25 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]I want reparations for the 20 years I filed taxes before I had kids and got the child tax credit. Where are my reparations TJ???
Did you have kids for those 20 years? No? You don't qualify for the credit.
And they weren't married for those years either.
Marriage shouldn't give anyone any tax breaks.
An antiquated system designed to keep women down. Marriage is awful. A contract with the government about love. Screw that.
(06-27-2019, 09:46 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2019, 05:04 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Pocahontas has as much chance of being President as I do. She's too extreme to the left for even the Democrats to run. What I fear is the day AOC turns 35. There could be an Obama-like surge behind her if she hasn't been chased out of Congress yet.
Did you have kids for those 20 years? No? You don't qualify for the credit.
And they weren't married for those years either.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, it only applies to years in which they were. No one's being paid for being gay.
(06-27-2019, 12:28 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2019, 09:46 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]And they weren't married for those years either.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, it only applies to years in which they were. No one's being paid for being gay.
You don't see where this is going? "They wanted to be married in 1984, but couldn't be because
Law, so we have to let them refile their returns as far back as they
can prove state they were a couple."
Easy solution.
Stop marriage tax breaks.
(06-27-2019, 02:47 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2019, 02:19 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Easy solution.
Stop marriage tax breaks.
Not gonna happen.
Why?
First off, separation of Church and State should make any marriage totally removed from Government and therefore unaffected by taxes.
(06-27-2019, 03:05 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2019, 02:47 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Not gonna happen.
Why?
First off, separation of Church and State should make any marriage totally removed from Government and therefore unaffected by taxes.
Because our culture will not accept the destruction of the their tax benefits. You're 100 years too late for what you want to happen.
I didn't see it mentioned, but white people can be descendants of slaves, too. What do we do for descendants of slaves that aren't black? Or would this be a black-only benefit?
(06-27-2019, 02:19 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Easy solution.
Stop marriage tax breaks.
Marriage produces future tax payers. Never going to happen.
If marriage tax breaks go away so should the biggest one out there that exists but is not officially recognized as such.
Divorce and alimony.
(06-27-2019, 01:38 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2019, 12:28 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, it only applies to years in which they were. No one's being paid for being gay.
You don't see where this is going? "They wanted to be married in 1984, but couldn't be because Law, so we have to let them refile their returns as far back as they can prove state they were a couple."
Your leap in logic is uncharacteristically astounding.
(06-27-2019, 06:42 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2019, 01:38 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You don't see where this is going? "They wanted to be married in 1984, but couldn't be because Law, so we have to let them refile their returns as far back as they can prove state they were a couple."
Your leap in logic is uncharacteristically astounding.
It's the Camel's Nose in the tent.
(06-27-2019, 04:46 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]If marriage tax breaks go away so should the biggest one out there that exists but is not officially recognized as such.
Divorce and alimony.
How are these considered tax breaks?
(06-25-2019, 03:23 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]So far the Democratic candidates have proposed:
Reparations for slavery.
Forgive all student debt.
Make college free.
Let everyone in prison vote.
Open borders. Don't believe me? Read this- https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth...e90da46c88
Raising taxes.
What's next? Forgive all mortgages? Give everyone a million dollars?
Forgiving student loans will add another TRILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS to the federal debt.
Oh, you already paid your loan? Screw you. You get nothing.
We have a MORON in the White House, but we have NO ALTERNATIVE. The Democrats have lost their minds.
AHA!! They've come up with a new one. At last night's debate, they all pledged to provide
free health care for illegal immigrants.
![[Image: oprah-free-car.gif]](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/809/oprah-free-car.gif){kind=icon}