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 25
    More: Interesting, estate taxes, gays, Catholic Mass, civil unions  
•       •       •

9961 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-29 10:15:24 PM  
4 votes:
Now wait a minute, didn't LIberace do that 35 years ago?
2013-06-29 09:21:40 PM  
3 votes:
At least we know who his daddy is.
2013-06-29 11:36:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:44:04 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:11:46 PM  
2 votes:
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.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-06-29 09:44:32 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-06-30 01:57:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:08 AM  
1 votes:
meh, either tax all inheritances or tax no inheritances.  Stop discriminating against the unmarried and unadopted.
2013-06-29 11:13:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:05:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:52:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:50:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:30:42 PM  
1 votes:
assets.nydailynews.com

"I want to be everything to you, Gregory . I want to be father, brother, lover, best friend."
2013-06-29 10:17:11 PM  
1 votes:
If my wife dies before me I plan on marrying my son. That way the tax burden is much less. No incest applies as there cac be no offspring as that is why invest laws were written. And I can now marry my pet goat. In fact my herd of pet goats. Polygamy YES!
See what all you queer Farkers have done?
Brilliant !
2013-06-29 10:16:09 PM  
1 votes:

EvilEgg: Making any sex they have incest, hence illegal.


Wrong, since adoptive relatives are not biological relatives. Also, incest isn't illegal.u
2013-06-29 10:04:44 PM  
1 votes:

EvilEgg: Making any sex they have incest, hence illegal.


www2.ivcc.edu
Intrigued.

/damn you, DrZiffle!
2013-06-29 10:02:56 PM  
1 votes:
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 ?
2013-06-29 09:59:37 PM  
1 votes:
Woody Allen unavailable for comment.
2013-06-29 09:59:11 PM  
1 votes:

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



My family raised an orphan from a foster home we met when he was in high school with my sister.  Now that my parents are in that time of life where they are thinking about what they are leaving behind, why shouldn't they be be to officially adopt him so that he will be considered in matters of estate?

That's just one example.
2013-06-29 09:59:08 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2013-06-29 09:53:38 PM  
1 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: How can you adopt adults?


$.
2013-06-29 09:53:19 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-29 09:51:32 PM  
1 votes:
How can you adopt adults?
2013-06-29 08:58:28 PM  
1 votes:
Making any sex they have incest, hence illegal.
2013-06-29 08:55:26 PM  
1 votes:
Kinky
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report