If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mirror.co.uk)   Because a man can't marry his gay partner, he adopts him instead and opens up a whole new can of worms   (mirror.co.uk) divider line 97
    More: Interesting, estate taxes, gays, Catholic Mass, civil unions  
•       •       •

9963 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2013 at 9:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-29 10:38:11 PM  

Begoggle: This is unfair.
They didn't allow that John Goodman guy to adopt his girlfriend, so they shouldn't allow this either.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/john-goodman-adopt-girlfrie nd _n_2971288.html


Were John (within the article) demonstrably attempting to avoid financial liability from multiple pending lawsuits, your comparison may be valid. He is not, however, so it is not.
 
2013-06-29 10:42:27 PM  
Ok, so, like, where are we going to draw the line with the whole LGBT stuff. Are we stopping at incest? Please let us stop at incest, I don't think I can be any more open minded and accepting.

/Didn't read the story, just the headline.
 
2013-06-29 10:42:34 PM  

VTGremlin: You know how you want to be taken seriously? This isn't helping.


I thought taxes were evil and doing anything legally possible to avoid them was next to godliness.
 
2013-06-29 10:43:43 PM  

sallys: Now wait a minute, didn't LIberace do that 35 years ago?


He's unavailable for comment.
 
2013-06-29 10:44:04 PM  

Evil Canadian: Makes sense to me. In a rational society, they would be allowed to marry and this would be a non-issue.

/Happy Pride for all those celebrating this weekend.


And in an even more rational society, you would be able to leave property to whomever you wanted to tax-free and this would be even more of a non-issue.
 
2013-06-29 10:44:49 PM  

alienated: Kuta: alienated: Okay, so they cant get married in Pennsylvania, yet .Why not move to say, New York or any other state that they can get married now ?

They could. But if either one of them DIES in Pennsylvania, the state will not recognize their marriage for survivor's benefits.

That was the whole impetus behind DOMA getting repealed, except that applied to federal benefits. The surviving lesbian of a married couple had to pay a huge extra inheritance tax because she couldn't pass along her assets to her lawful spouse?

These guys obviously don't want to be the next "test case" at the state level.

Oh, I understand that. Thats why I said they should move. PN and NY share a border- move to NY, visit PA. PA survivors benefit rules would have zero eefect on them if they are NY residents. Unless I am completely wrong .


Except that they own property in PA.
 
2013-06-29 10:45:56 PM  

RevMercutio: Except that they own property in PA.


Sell, Mortimer, Sell !
 
2013-06-29 10:50:48 PM  

ObnoxiousLonghorn: Ok, so, like, where are we going to draw the line with the whole LGBT stuff. Are we stopping at incest? Please let us stop at incest, I don't think I can be any more open minded and accepting.

/Didn't read the story, just the headline.


An individual adopting an unrelated adult to attain certain legal benefits unavailable through other means due to discriminatory marital restrictions does not constitute incest.
 
2013-06-29 10:52:28 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: VTGremlin: You know how you want to be taken seriously? This isn't helping.

I thought taxes were evil and doing anything legally possible to avoid them was next to godliness.


When a same-sex couple seeks to avoid excessive inheritance tax by an unorthodox method due to marriage being legally unavailable to them, they are engaging in a "tax dodge" and they should be imprisoned for it.

Opposite-sex couples who marry specifically to avoid inheritance tax are entering a sacred union that is diminished by mere discussion of opening it to same-sex couples.

/That is what same-sex marriage opponents actually believe.
//They are incredibly stupid and irrational.
 
2013-06-29 10:58:16 PM  
Changed his inheritance tax rate from 15 to 4%.  BRILLIANT.    Kudos!
 
2013-06-29 11:01:11 PM  
Worms in the can???

I bet they've never heard That one before. Stay classy Fark.
 
2013-06-29 11:02:45 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: How can you adopt adults?



I always thought it was called - ironically enough - kidnapping. But maybe not.
 
2013-06-29 11:05:16 PM  

Evil Canadian: Makes sense to me. In a rational society, they would be allowed to marry and this would be a non-issue.

/Happy Pride for all those celebrating this weekend.


Pretty much. Good on them for using loopholes in an abusive system to gain the rights they should already have!
 
2013-06-29 11:07:24 PM  

Aquapope: This should send teabagger fundies straight crazy.  Reducing taxes, on one hand.  On the other hand... HOMOS!!!


Precisely my thinking. On the one hand the 'baggers would have to applaud the single-minded zealotry to avoid those evil taxes. On the other hand, the men might do icky things in bed and be a bad example for impressionable babies.

The difference is 4 percent vs. 15 percent taxation. Is the difference THAT great, considering the hassles of adoption? I mean, I'd be tempted to say to hell with it and pay up, but the couple does have a great chance here to put across a pointed political message.
 
2013-06-29 11:13:42 PM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Aquapope: This should send teabagger fundies straight crazy.  Reducing taxes, on one hand.  On the other hand... HOMOS!!!

Precisely my thinking. On the one hand the 'baggers would have to applaud the single-minded zealotry to avoid those evil taxes. On the other hand, the men might do icky things in bed and be a bad example for impressionable babies.

The difference is 4 percent vs. 15 percent taxation. Is the difference THAT great, considering the hassles of adoption? I mean, I'd be tempted to say to hell with it and pay up, but the couple does have a great chance here to put across a pointed political message.


No cognitive dissonance would occur. Same-sex marriage opponents hate homosexuals so irrationally that they endorse and approve of any condition or measure that makes the life of a homosexual more difficult, including excessive taxation. They will, instead, accuse any homosexual couple who enters such a relationship of being a hypocrite for not wishing to pay all possible taxes.
 
2013-06-29 11:23:29 PM  
Huck And Molly Ziegler:

The difference is 4 percent vs. 15 percent taxation. Is the difference THAT great, considering the hassles of adoption? I mean, I'd be tempted to say to hell with it and pay up, but the couple does have a great chance here to put across a pointed political message.


Quick and dirty napkin math on a ~$1mil farmstead (very easy to find in western PA) puts the difference between 15% and 4% at an extra $110,000. That is a hell of a lot of money.
 
2013-06-29 11:27:42 PM  

Dimensio: Begoggle: This is unfair.
They didn't allow that John Goodman guy to adopt his girlfriend, so they shouldn't allow this either.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/john-goodman-adopt-girlfrie nd _n_2971288.html

Were John (within the article) demonstrably attempting to avoid financial liability from multiple pending lawsuits, your comparison may be valid. He is not, however, so it is not.


Law seems pretty black and white to me.  Either you're guilty, or you're not guilty.

Open and shut.
 
2013-06-29 11:27:43 PM  

alienated: Kuta: alienated: Okay, so they cant get married in Pennsylvania, yet .Why not move to say, New York or any other state that they can get married now ?

They could. But if either one of them DIES in Pennsylvania, the state will not recognize their marriage for survivor's benefits.

That was the whole impetus behind DOMA getting repealed, except that applied to federal benefits. The surviving lesbian of a married couple had to pay a huge extra inheritance tax because she couldn't pass along her assets to her lawful spouse?

These guys obviously don't want to be the next "test case" at the state level.

Oh, I understand that. Thats why I said they should move. PN and NY share a border- move to NY, visit PA. PA survivors benefit rules would have zero eefect on them if they are NY residents. Unless I am completely wrong .


What if they have property they can't just pack up and take with them? A house and/or land?
 
2013-06-29 11:31:00 PM  

fusillade762: Brainsick: Ted Nugent, English version.

Even though it's the Mirror this couple is in Pennsylvania.


THE SUN IS THERE!

But the story is in the Mirror...
 
2013-06-29 11:36:32 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Satanic_Hamster: No no, I mean, why is that even legal?  What's the logic for it, besides financial scams?

Are companies that register in the Bahamas to pay no tax also engaging in a scam, or simply using the law?


And the 200,000+ corporations chartered in Delaware because of their sweetheart tax laws. Not to mention the companies like GE, Wells Fargo and Verizon who actually had a NEGATIVE tax liability thanks to creative accounting.

But I guess it's OK when corporations do it.
 
2013-06-29 11:45:50 PM  
Something ring something in the darkness bind them.
 
2013-06-29 11:47:16 PM  
Sounds like the bigger problem is that money which has already been taxed should not be taxed again...for nothing.
 
2013-06-29 11:58:55 PM  

Claude Ballse: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x345]

"I want to be everything to you, Gregory . I want to be father, brother, lover, best friend."


That was a such a goddam good movie.
 
2013-06-30 12:00:05 AM  

Lawnchair: Mr. Eugenides: If they own the property as Joint-Tenants the property goes to the surviving partner.  No taxes, no muss, no fuss.

It's only an issue if they own the property as tenants in common and if they do that can be fixed quickly enough.

The same can apply to various accounts as long as they are joint account holders.

Just because it avoids going to probate court doesn't mean that it doesn't count under the unified gift/inheritance tax system.  After my dad died, my mom made her house joint-tenany with me (so I wouldn't have to probate it later).  I had to report half the value of the house as a gift at that time, and the other half as inheritance when she died (of course, I was several digits short of worrying about any inheritance tax).


Gift to a person's own kids and inheritance should have nothing to do with the tax system.

I worked for this money, and one of my highest motivating drivers was a better life for my kids, now you are going to mess with that?
Take away half?! You kidding me?!
 
2013-06-30 12:33:19 AM  

Resident Muslim: Gift to a person's own kids and inheritance should have nothing to do with the tax system.

I worked for this money, and one of my highest motivating drivers was a better life for my kids, now you are going to mess with that?
Take away half?! You kidding me?!


How many kids do you have that splitting $5,250,000 between them won't be enough to give them a shot at a "better life?" If you're worth less than that and you died today, the federal government wouldn't be taking  any of it, much less half.
 
2013-06-30 12:38:14 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: How can you adopt adults?


ask tim drake or burt ward
 
2013-06-30 12:52:51 AM  
The Ancient Romans got around not having legal gay marriage this same way, and four hundred years later, their Civilization was toast (except in the East, where the Empire survived another thousands years until a couple of centuries after their fellow Christians sacked Constantinople in 1204, when the Muslims did the same in 1453 and brought the Empire to an end).

Mind you the Ancient Roman Emperors came up with a better idea:  you adopt the Emperor and when you die, he gets all of your family wealth. You tended to have a curtailed life expectancy because suicide was part of the Imperial Family Package.
 
2013-06-30 01:08:18 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: ZAZ: This is an old trick.

Remember that drunk driver in Florida who adopted his girlfriend? We had a thread about the appeals court decision voiding adoption for lack of notice to interested parties. One of the judges would have disallowed the adoption because you can't adopt your girlfriend. He cited with approval an old New York case that was about gay adoption.

I'm pretty sure either Steven Tyler or Ted Nugent did this back in the 70s.


Steven Tyler adopted Ted Nugent?
 
2013-06-30 01:16:18 AM  

SpdrJay: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: ZAZ: This is an old trick.

Remember that drunk driver in Florida who adopted his girlfriend? We had a thread about the appeals court decision voiding adoption for lack of notice to interested parties. One of the judges would have disallowed the adoption because you can't adopt your girlfriend. He cited with approval an old New York case that was about gay adoption.

I'm pretty sure either Steven Tyler or Ted Nugent did this back in the 70s.

Steven Tyler adopted Ted Nugent?


No way, Liv Tyler is way too pretty.
 
2013-06-30 01:29:12 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: No no, I mean, why is that even legal?  What's the logic for it, besides financial scams?


I can't speak for other countries, but in Japan adult adoption has been extremely common for generations.

For example: You're a craftsman running a shop, you want the family business to survive after you're too old to work, but you have no sons. So you take in an apprentice, and once he knows the business well enough, you either marry him to one of your daughters and have him take your family name or have him officially registered as part of your family and adopt him as your son. This is why there are a lot of traditional craft shops and artisans around Japan that can trace their business back 20+ generations.

Adult adoption is actually far more common in Japan than adoption of children. The only restriction is that the one doing the adopting must be older than the adoptee, even if it's only by a day. Since there's no same-sex marriage in Japan, a lot of homosexual couples do it now to ensure that their partner has automatic power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc.
 
2013-06-30 01:37:08 AM  
meh, either tax all inheritances or tax no inheritances.  Stop discriminating against the unmarried and unadopted.
 
2013-06-30 01:40:42 AM  
I'm also not getting all the squick here. Incest is a sexual relationship between two people with a close blood relation.

Those of you claiming to be absolutely disgusted that these two are committing incest (which apparently in your mind wasn't incest for the duration of their relationship, but only became such the moment they signed a piece of paper), are either just grossed out because it's two guys, or are simply too stupid for words.
 
2013-06-30 03:09:07 AM  

sumida sublight: I'm also not getting all the squick here. Incest is a sexual relationship between two people with a close blood relation.

Those of you claiming to be absolutely disgusted that these two are committing incest (which apparently in your mind wasn't incest for the duration of their relationship, but only became such the moment they signed a piece of paper), are either just grossed out because it's two guys, or are simply too stupid for words.


I think it was more of a legal question than a moral judgement.
Incest laws were designed to protect breeding quality, these gentlemen are not willing or likely to cause any damage to this concept.
 
2013-06-30 03:23:43 AM  
Friends of Jeremy Irons?
 
2013-06-30 06:09:47 AM  

semiotix: Resident Muslim: Gift to a person's own kids and inheritance should have nothing to do with the tax system.

I worked for this money, and one of my highest motivating drivers was a better life for my kids, now you are going to mess with that?
Take away half?! You kidding me?!

How many kids do you have that splitting $5,250,000 between them won't be enough to give them a shot at a "better life?" If you're worth less than that and you died today, the federal government wouldn't be taking  any of it, much less half.


Let's say 10 million over four kids.

(I'm not that rich...yet. Come on law I attraction!!)
I would love to leave billions to my kids, assuming I have raised them to appreciate the value of 5 bucks to feed a hungry person and also understand how to spend it wisely, even if pampering themselves.

So, what makes the government entitled to that money that is over the 5m? This is money that has already been taxed. What makes the transfer of ownership from me to my kids a transaction that deems taxation?
Even worse is the 'gifting' tax if/when I give my kids something expensive.

Maybe I'm not clear in my mind on taxation.
You take from pocket to give me services, especially shared services such as infrastructure, I can understand, paying for services that I probably won't use (if I'm rich enough) such as public schooling, public health, I can also understand. Especially as a more educated and healthier society is a better society for everyone.
I think the point of contention is that I see my kids and myself as one unit and the government doesn't.
As if I'm transferring corporate funds from a mother-company to a subsidiary.
Taxes have many drivers from the viewpoint of the government, including so called 'sin' tax.
It's just with this one I don't see the justification except to stop families from amassing huge amounts of wealth.
Here is another point of argument for me; if a fool and his money are soon parted, then these people are not fools if they manage to keep their fortunes. So they would probably be job-creators, a term that due to injustices in the system has taken a negative connotation. But I think it is a term people who are currently unemployed or looking for a better break can appreciate.
So take the money from people who are hopefully doing something beneficial with it, even if just spending it, and give that to the government who God knows will use it for what.

Also, as a Muslim, I'm obliged to give to charity of 2.5% of whatever cash I have that has spent a year without being circulated (called "Zakat". So that is another encouragement to "do something useful" with whatever cash I have.

/as with all things socio-economic; what do I know.
//sorry for the rant. Though probably people that rich probably have all the lawyers whom will help them bypass these laws, which also doesn't make sense. Maybe the spirit of the law appeases the 99%. Again, what do I know. I just hope I made more sense than usual.
//two slashies only. Third one was used to pay tax.
 
2013-06-30 07:10:59 AM  
So it's about money and not about the gay love
 
2013-06-30 07:52:14 AM  
Just GTFO of PA and cross the NY border, and a couple days and a justice of the peace, and you're home free anyway.

Four days of viewing and a Catholic mass... fark that. Leave detailed instructions with a lawyer so these things (at least, one assumes) can't happen.
 
2013-06-30 08:32:34 AM  
"gay love" is sketchy.  two guys with business suits on.  what the hell are they planning
 
2013-06-30 09:21:11 AM  
Didn't read the entire thread or the article, but I have a question.  IF the adoption go through and he is now legally his son.  What happens when gay-marriage becomes legal in PA?  Will they not be able to marry because they are legally father and son?

I'm just thinking that this might be a little short-sighted.
 
2013-06-30 10:14:17 AM  

stirfrybry: So it's about money and not about the gay love


And the crimefighting.
 
2013-06-30 11:15:39 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Are companies that register in the Bahamas to pay no tax also engaging in a scam


Um, yes... Is this some kind of trick question??
 
2013-06-30 11:47:32 AM  
themikejones.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-30 01:57:43 PM  

Resident Muslim: So, what makes the government entitled to that money that is over the 5m? This is money that has already been taxed. What makes the transfer of ownership from me to my kids a transaction that deems taxation?
Even worse is the 'gifting' tax if/when I give my kids something expensive.


Fair enough. I was hoping you'd go the HURRRRR GUMMINT TAXES route, but since you're asking in all seriousness, here's a sketch of my answer. (This is not intended as an airtight summary of all possible justifications for taxation whatsoever.)

Two quick things up front. First of all, the "already taxed" thing is a bit of a red herring. Every dollar is taxed every time it changes hands, with various and numerous exceptions. My employer's profits are taxed, and then the income he pays to me is taxed, and then I pay sales tax, etc. That's three taxations. But nobody complains about the same dollar being  earned three times. Second, you can't have an estate tax without a gift tax--otherwise parents would wait until they were circling the drain and then "gift" the whole estate to the nearest kid. (Which would in turn lead to a lot of annoying complications when Grandpa died sooner than expected, or the newly-wealthy kids started welching on the unwritten bargain that they'd keep Dad in the style he'd been accustomed to while he waited to die, etc.)

But in answer to your "what gives the government the right" question, well, a bunch of things. At a basic level, it's the law enabling the estate tax, just as we have laws enabling the income tax, the sales tax, and every other tax. What you probably mean is "why is this a good idea, given that almost anyone would rather give their kids more money if they could?"

There are a few technical reasons, at least in the US tax code, that make it necessary to take stock of things at the time of death, because there are taxes on investments that can be essentially deferred forever while a person lives, but which could not be collected from an inheritor as the rules are written.

But mostly, it's because governments--and this includes very "fiscally conservative" or "pro-business" governments over the centuries--have learned that idle money and concentrated money are economically and socially toxic. A $10,000,000 inherited fortune is a huge disincentive to labor or entrepreneurship on the one hand--why work, or risk what you have, when you don't need to? Also, those kinds of fortunes tend to be very passively invested, which is less than ideal if you're trying to engineer a constantly growing economy. On those grounds alone, there's a very strong (and economically conservative) case to be made that "active rich" >> "idle rich," or put another way, that an economy in which people  earn money is much, much healthier than one where people simply have money.

Wealth disparity, which the estate tax cuts down on, is like sugar. A certain amount of it is always necessary; a lot of it over a long period of time gives you a very nasty disease that is essentially incurable. Remember, governments tend to see their roles not as the protectors of any one individual's welfare, but of the system as a whole. It's no great moral outrage from that standpoint to say that the interests of the whole in mitigating wealth disparity outweighs a given child's "right" to every penny of the sixth million, the seventh million, the tenth million dollar in a windfall.

You mentioned charity--that's actually another argument in favor of the estate tax, although not one I'm fond of, since "charity" is defined a little loosely for tax purposes for my tastes. Large estates can and do avoid the estate tax that way, either by giving much more near the end of life, or making charities their beneficiaries. It's safe to say that the charity sector would take a huge hit if the estate tax went away.

Incidentally, under the current law, your four kids would get about $2.1M apiece from your hypothetical $10M estate, if you did absolutely nothing to shelter any of it. I'm guessing there are very few children for whom $2.5M would be enough, but $2.1M would be a catastrophe, and that's the logic behind the law. Tax first where it will do the least harm.

//two slashies only. Third one was used to pay tax.

Heh.
 
2013-06-30 04:45:46 PM  

semiotix: Resident Muslim: So, what makes the government entitled to that money that is over the 5m? This is money that has already been taxed. What makes the transfer of ownership from me to my kids a transaction that deems taxation?
Even worse is the 'gifting' tax if/when I give my kids something expensive.

Fair enough. I was hoping you'd go the HURRRRR GUMMINT TAXES route, but since you're asking in all seriousness, here's a sketch of my answer. (This is not intended as an airtight summary of all possible justifications for taxation whatsoever.)

Two quick things up front. First of all, the "already taxed" thing is a bit of a red herring. Every dollar is taxed every time it changes hands, with various and numerous exceptions. My employer's profits are taxed, and then the income he pays to me is taxed, and then I pay sales tax, etc. That's three taxations. But nobody complains about the same dollar being  earned three times. Second, you can't have an estate tax without a gift tax--otherwise parents would wait until they were circling the drain and then "gift" the whole estate to the nearest kid. (Which would in turn lead to a lot of annoying complications when Grandpa died sooner than expected, or the newly-wealthy kids started welching on the unwritten bargain that they'd keep Dad in the style he'd been accustomed to while he waited to die, etc.)

But in answer to your "what gives the government the right" question, well, a bunch of things. At a basic level, it's the law enabling the estate tax, just as we have laws enabling the income tax, the sales tax, and every other tax. What you probably mean is "why is this a good idea, given that almost anyone would rather give their kids more money if they could?"

There are a few technical reasons, at least in the US tax code, that make it necessary to take stock of things at the time of death, because there are taxes on investments that can be essentially deferred forever while a person lives, but which could not be collected from an inheritor as the rules are written.

But mostly, it's because governments--and this includes very "fiscally conservative" or "pro-business" governments over the centuries--have learned that idle money and concentrated money are economically and socially toxic. A $10,000,000 inherited fortune is a huge disincentive to labor or entrepreneurship on the one hand--why work, or risk what you have, when you don't need to? Also, those kinds of fortunes tend to be very passively invested, which is less than ideal if you're trying to engineer a constantly growing economy. On those grounds alone, there's a very strong (and economically conservative) case to be made that "active rich" >> "idle rich," or put another way, that an economy in which people  earn money is much, much healthier than one where people simply have money.

Wealth disparity, which the estate tax cuts down on, is like sugar. A certain amount of it is always necessary; a lot of it over a long period of time gives you a very nasty disease that is essentially incurable. Remember, governments tend to see their roles not as the protectors of any one individual's welfare, but of the system as a whole. It's no great moral outrage from that standpoint to say that the interests of the whole in mitigating wealth disparity outweighs a given child's "right" to every penny of the sixth million, the seventh million, the tenth million dollar in a windfall.

You mentioned charity--that's actually another argument in favor of the estate tax, although not one I'm fond of, since "charity" is defined a little loosely for tax purposes for my tastes. Large estates can and do avoid the estate tax that way, either by giving much more near the end of life, or making charities their beneficiaries. It's safe to say that the charity sector would take a huge hit if the estate tax went away.

Incidentally, under the current law, your four kids would get about $2.1M apiece from your hypothetical $10M estate, if you did absolutely nothing to shelter any of it. I'm guessing there are very few children for whom $2.5M would be enough, but $2.1M would be a catastrophe, and that's the logic behind the law. Tax first where it will do the least harm.

//two slashies only. Third one was used to pay tax.

Heh.


1) thank you so very much for giving me your time.
2) I can argue a lot of these points, but I think emotionally, if I feel that beyond a certain point the government will take or tax that amount, I really wouldn't be incentivized to push beyond.
3) I just checked the IRS website and it confirms that gifts to spouses are exempt. What difference to the government is it who I make the gift to? Or is this just some blanket law that closes loopholes? Giving my spouse an expensive gift does not differ to me from buying one of my kids a car. How does it affect the government?
4) you have been favorited orange as a level-headed person.

/one slashie only. Had to sell the rest to pay on capital gains tax.
 
2013-06-30 04:57:31 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

/nice a non-homophobic reply in a gay thread
//i'm the bomb
 
2013-06-30 05:13:57 PM  

Resident Muslim: 1) thank you so very much for giving me your time.
2) I can argue a lot of these points, but I think emotionally, if I feel that beyond a certain point the government will take or tax that amount, I really wouldn't be incentivized to push beyond.
3) I just checked the IRS website and it confirms that gifts to spouses are exempt. What difference to the government is it who I make the gift to? Or is this just some blanket law that closes loopholes? Giving my spouse an expensive gift does not differ to me from buying one of my kids a car. How does it affect the government?
4) you have been favorited orange as a level-headed person.


1) Any time! Whether anyone wants it or not!

3) Your spouse (and this kind of brings it back to TFA about the gay couple who can't marry in PA) is a special case, because the law (generally) treats your property as jointly held. That's a modern fix of the older way of doing things, in which you owned everything your wife brought to the marriage outright. So gifts to your wife are treated as just sloshing money around in your own pockets. You could probably make the case that we should do away with treating married couples that way for tax/gift/lawsuit/other financial purposes, if you don't like government social engineering, but that happens to be a very popular and ancient form of government social engineering.

4) You'll regret that sooner or later.
 
2013-06-30 10:21:32 PM  
themikejones.files.wordpress.com
                           GAY
 
Displayed 47 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report