[Fletch]

It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)

Further, most here seem to be of the opinion that civil marriage is a right and as such, the government should not preferentially grant this right to some groups over others.

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)

[Fletch]

It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)

Further, most here seem to be of the opinion that civil marriage is a right and as such, the government should not preferentially grant this right to some groups over others.

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)

[Fletch]

It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)

Further, most here seem to be of the opinion that civil marriage is a right and as such, the government should not preferentially grant this right to some groups over others.

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)

[Fletch]

It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)

Further, most here seem to be of the opinion that civil marriage is a right and as such, the government should not preferentially grant this right to some groups over others.

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)

[Fletch]

It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)

Further, most here seem to be of the opinion that civil marriage is a right and as such, the government should not preferentially grant this right to some groups over others.

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)

[Fletch]

Apparently San Diego had the second largest increase in price reductions in the country from April 1 to May 1:

http://info.trulia.com/index.php?s=43&item=88

San Diego went from 12% to 17% (% listings with price reductions) which may be significant because we have far more listings than say, Omaha. On the other hand, it’s not clear whether they are referring to the city of San Diego, or the greater San Diego area.

[Fletch]

Apparently San Diego had the second largest increase in price reductions in the country from April 1 to May 1:

http://info.trulia.com/index.php?s=43&item=88

San Diego went from 12% to 17% (% listings with price reductions) which may be significant because we have far more listings than say, Omaha. On the other hand, it’s not clear whether they are referring to the city of San Diego, or the greater San Diego area.

[Fletch]

Apparently San Diego had the second largest increase in price reductions in the country from April 1 to May 1:

http://info.trulia.com/index.php?s=43&item=88

San Diego went from 12% to 17% (% listings with price reductions) which may be significant because we have far more listings than say, Omaha. On the other hand, it’s not clear whether they are referring to the city of San Diego, or the greater San Diego area.

[Fletch]

Apparently San Diego had the second largest increase in price reductions in the country from April 1 to May 1:

http://info.trulia.com/index.php?s=43&item=88

San Diego went from 12% to 17% (% listings with price reductions) which may be significant because we have far more listings than say, Omaha. On the other hand, it’s not clear whether they are referring to the city of San Diego, or the greater San Diego area.

[Fletch]

Apparently San Diego had the second largest increase in price reductions in the country from April 1 to May 1:

http://info.trulia.com/index.php?s=43&item=88

San Diego went from 12% to 17% (% listings with price reductions) which may be significant because we have far more listings than say, Omaha. On the other hand, it’s not clear whether they are referring to the city of San Diego, or the greater San Diego area.

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Fletch]
My dad gets Social Security. He did not get an increase in 2010.
[/quote]

Looks like it’s mostly medicare and medicaid:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/04/16/why-the-us-cant-inflate-its-way-out-of-debt.aspx

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Fletch]
My dad gets Social Security. He did not get an increase in 2010.
[/quote]

Looks like it’s mostly medicare and medicaid:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/04/16/why-the-us-cant-inflate-its-way-out-of-debt.aspx

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Fletch]
My dad gets Social Security. He did not get an increase in 2010.
[/quote]

Looks like it’s mostly medicare and medicaid:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/04/16/why-the-us-cant-inflate-its-way-out-of-debt.aspx

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Fletch]
My dad gets Social Security. He did not get an increase in 2010.
[/quote]

Looks like it’s mostly medicare and medicaid:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/04/16/why-the-us-cant-inflate-its-way-out-of-debt.aspx

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Fletch]
My dad gets Social Security. He did not get an increase in 2010.
[/quote]

Looks like it’s mostly medicare and medicaid:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/04/16/why-the-us-cant-inflate-its-way-out-of-debt.aspx

[Author]

Posts