[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Guess I fell for the rhetoric during the campaign promising not increase on taxes if you make under $200k. Very short sighted of me to think of this as salary only. Silly me.

[/quote]

I don’t understand this. If you make under $200K it doesn’t apply. Which rhetoric did you fall for?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Guess I fell for the rhetoric during the campaign promising not increase on taxes if you make under $200k. Very short sighted of me to think of this as salary only. Silly me.

[/quote]

I don’t understand this. If you make under $200K it doesn’t apply. Which rhetoric did you fall for?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Guess I fell for the rhetoric during the campaign promising not increase on taxes if you make under $200k. Very short sighted of me to think of this as salary only. Silly me.

[/quote]

I don’t understand this. If you make under $200K it doesn’t apply. Which rhetoric did you fall for?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Guess I fell for the rhetoric during the campaign promising not increase on taxes if you make under $200k. Very short sighted of me to think of this as salary only. Silly me.

[/quote]

I don’t understand this. If you make under $200K it doesn’t apply. Which rhetoric did you fall for?

[SK in CV]

This is just bs. It’s only a revelation for those that weren’t paying attention. The surtax for high income taxpayers was long negotiated.

And it has zero to do with, as the article says “equity pocketed by a ..seller” . It has to do with profit. Gain. Equity is affected by debt. Gain is not.

This raises the tax rate on high income taxpayers to right around where it was before the Bush tax cuts.

The income level is without regards to wages or other business income. If you earn $400,000 a year from a job, and a have a few bucks in interest income, this tax will not apply.

[SK in CV]

This is just bs. It’s only a revelation for those that weren’t paying attention. The surtax for high income taxpayers was long negotiated.

And it has zero to do with, as the article says “equity pocketed by a ..seller” . It has to do with profit. Gain. Equity is affected by debt. Gain is not.

This raises the tax rate on high income taxpayers to right around where it was before the Bush tax cuts.

The income level is without regards to wages or other business income. If you earn $400,000 a year from a job, and a have a few bucks in interest income, this tax will not apply.

[SK in CV]

This is just bs. It’s only a revelation for those that weren’t paying attention. The surtax for high income taxpayers was long negotiated.

And it has zero to do with, as the article says “equity pocketed by a ..seller” . It has to do with profit. Gain. Equity is affected by debt. Gain is not.

This raises the tax rate on high income taxpayers to right around where it was before the Bush tax cuts.

The income level is without regards to wages or other business income. If you earn $400,000 a year from a job, and a have a few bucks in interest income, this tax will not apply.

[SK in CV]

This is just bs. It’s only a revelation for those that weren’t paying attention. The surtax for high income taxpayers was long negotiated.

And it has zero to do with, as the article says “equity pocketed by a ..seller” . It has to do with profit. Gain. Equity is affected by debt. Gain is not.

This raises the tax rate on high income taxpayers to right around where it was before the Bush tax cuts.

The income level is without regards to wages or other business income. If you earn $400,000 a year from a job, and a have a few bucks in interest income, this tax will not apply.

[SK in CV]

This is just bs. It’s only a revelation for those that weren’t paying attention. The surtax for high income taxpayers was long negotiated.

And it has zero to do with, as the article says “equity pocketed by a ..seller” . It has to do with profit. Gain. Equity is affected by debt. Gain is not.

This raises the tax rate on high income taxpayers to right around where it was before the Bush tax cuts.

The income level is without regards to wages or other business income. If you earn $400,000 a year from a job, and a have a few bucks in interest income, this tax will not apply.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]Explain something to me. Before this recent ruling, were same-sex civil unions legal in CA? Are same-sex civil unions legal in the US?

Pardon my ignorance on this issue. I’m trying to distinguish between the status of same-sex civil unions and same-sex marriages here in the US.

Personally, I’d be in favor of outlawing marriages altogether and allowing civil unions between any consenting adults – including polygamists, etc. But that’s just me.[/quote]

California law (this ruling notwithstanding) provides for Domestic Partnerships. Similar to other state’s civil union laws, it provides many, but certainly not all of the rights and privledges of marriage under state law, and has some requirements that do not exist under the state laws covering marriage.

There are no federal laws outlawing civil unions, domestic partnerships, or same-sex marriage. There is however, the “Defense of Marriage Act”, passed in 1996, which (in my opinion, in violation of the both the full faith and credit and equal protection clauses of the Constitution) exempted requiring states from recognizing unions from other states. The SCOTUS has yet to rule on its legality.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]Explain something to me. Before this recent ruling, were same-sex civil unions legal in CA? Are same-sex civil unions legal in the US?

Pardon my ignorance on this issue. I’m trying to distinguish between the status of same-sex civil unions and same-sex marriages here in the US.

Personally, I’d be in favor of outlawing marriages altogether and allowing civil unions between any consenting adults – including polygamists, etc. But that’s just me.[/quote]

California law (this ruling notwithstanding) provides for Domestic Partnerships. Similar to other state’s civil union laws, it provides many, but certainly not all of the rights and privledges of marriage under state law, and has some requirements that do not exist under the state laws covering marriage.

There are no federal laws outlawing civil unions, domestic partnerships, or same-sex marriage. There is however, the “Defense of Marriage Act”, passed in 1996, which (in my opinion, in violation of the both the full faith and credit and equal protection clauses of the Constitution) exempted requiring states from recognizing unions from other states. The SCOTUS has yet to rule on its legality.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]Explain something to me. Before this recent ruling, were same-sex civil unions legal in CA? Are same-sex civil unions legal in the US?

Pardon my ignorance on this issue. I’m trying to distinguish between the status of same-sex civil unions and same-sex marriages here in the US.

Personally, I’d be in favor of outlawing marriages altogether and allowing civil unions between any consenting adults – including polygamists, etc. But that’s just me.[/quote]

California law (this ruling notwithstanding) provides for Domestic Partnerships. Similar to other state’s civil union laws, it provides many, but certainly not all of the rights and privledges of marriage under state law, and has some requirements that do not exist under the state laws covering marriage.

There are no federal laws outlawing civil unions, domestic partnerships, or same-sex marriage. There is however, the “Defense of Marriage Act”, passed in 1996, which (in my opinion, in violation of the both the full faith and credit and equal protection clauses of the Constitution) exempted requiring states from recognizing unions from other states. The SCOTUS has yet to rule on its legality.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]Explain something to me. Before this recent ruling, were same-sex civil unions legal in CA? Are same-sex civil unions legal in the US?

Pardon my ignorance on this issue. I’m trying to distinguish between the status of same-sex civil unions and same-sex marriages here in the US.

Personally, I’d be in favor of outlawing marriages altogether and allowing civil unions between any consenting adults – including polygamists, etc. But that’s just me.[/quote]

California law (this ruling notwithstanding) provides for Domestic Partnerships. Similar to other state’s civil union laws, it provides many, but certainly not all of the rights and privledges of marriage under state law, and has some requirements that do not exist under the state laws covering marriage.

There are no federal laws outlawing civil unions, domestic partnerships, or same-sex marriage. There is however, the “Defense of Marriage Act”, passed in 1996, which (in my opinion, in violation of the both the full faith and credit and equal protection clauses of the Constitution) exempted requiring states from recognizing unions from other states. The SCOTUS has yet to rule on its legality.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]Explain something to me. Before this recent ruling, were same-sex civil unions legal in CA? Are same-sex civil unions legal in the US?

Pardon my ignorance on this issue. I’m trying to distinguish between the status of same-sex civil unions and same-sex marriages here in the US.

Personally, I’d be in favor of outlawing marriages altogether and allowing civil unions between any consenting adults – including polygamists, etc. But that’s just me.[/quote]

California law (this ruling notwithstanding) provides for Domestic Partnerships. Similar to other state’s civil union laws, it provides many, but certainly not all of the rights and privledges of marriage under state law, and has some requirements that do not exist under the state laws covering marriage.

There are no federal laws outlawing civil unions, domestic partnerships, or same-sex marriage. There is however, the “Defense of Marriage Act”, passed in 1996, which (in my opinion, in violation of the both the full faith and credit and equal protection clauses of the Constitution) exempted requiring states from recognizing unions from other states. The SCOTUS has yet to rule on its legality.

[SK in CV]

I agree with your conclusion.

Politically, the Dems spent a year negotiating with an opposition that wouldn’t have supported this bill no matter what it said, but now can point at it and say they did something, while really doing almost nothing, And the Republicans have something to assail. As a practical matter, it’s almost a yawner. But political fuel all around.

[Author]

Posts