[SK in CV]

BG, you are aware that there are a lot of poly families that aren’t religious at all, no? Those that I’ve known were all 1 man, two women. No exploitation. All by choice. I know at least 1 that has been going strong for at least 15 years. I’m sure that those that have problems with same sex marriage would have similar problems with any poly relationship. But it’s unclear to me why they shouldn’t be able to get married just like anyone else.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
The point still is, and especially if civil unions are unconstitutional, any ‘union’ can get benefits.

[/quote]

No, not any union. Just marriage.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Now spending for a transgendered bathroom. Hmm. 🙂

Back on topic.

Quote:
The court effectively ruled that states must convey all benefits to same sex couples as are available to opposite sex couples.

My statement said this is exactly what a civil union does. Followed by ‘strict’ econ perspective.

Emotion aside, just make two columns and compare costs. Just like Econ 200. That is as far as I wanted to discuss because as like the rest here, I don’t care what you do with whomever, wherever, or whatever.

So why haven’t the feminists weighed in the polygamist lifestyle?[/quote]

You might think that civil unions do the same thing. But there have never been any civil union laws, in any state, that actually do the same thing. (If you think there are, find one that grants SS benefits to surviving partners.) So those laws would have to be changed, resulting in identical costs. Beyond that, civil unions for same sex couples, as opposed to legally sanctioned marriage, have already been overturned as unconstitutional.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
Gay folks are about 5% and who knows how many elect to now get married, mayby 2% of that. Now just how much money will we now have to be spend to write and amend laws and reprint forms to comply with this very small population.

From a strict econ perspective, ( even with the collection of ‘marriage’ tax) it just is too costly.

[/quote]

Yeah, it’s a bitch. Kind of like when they had to take down all those signs that said “whites only”. Was that too costly?

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]States and the federal government could have gotten out of the business of marriage completely and given it back to the church, or conveyed all those benefits to any couple, but they did neither.[/quote]

Neither the federal government nor any of the states ever took anything from the church, so there was nothing to be given back.

The court effectively ruled that states must convey all benefits to same sex couples as are available to opposite sex couples.

[SK in CV]

because some people believe there might be numismatic value in this shit 50 years from now. There is some premium in Pandas and other gold coins. They sell so many, there probably won’t be anything more significant 10 years from now than there is today. I have 50 lbs of uncirculated kennedy halfs that my father bought from the mint 50 years ago. They’re worth about $10. On paper. If I want to sell more than a few, I’m probably not going to get that. Current melt is about $6.20. I guess that’s not a horrible yield for a 50 year hold. Maybe it’s not so bad. 20x in 50 years, but they were worth more than melt when they were brand new. And silver isn’t worth twice what it was in ’64. I dunno, maybe I’m wrong.

[SK in CV]

There is virtually no numismatic value to either. They trade at a small discount (transaction cost) to spot price of the metal in the coin.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]Now that’s an overpriced mcmansion! Does it have a river rock fireplace? That alone might be the reason for the $384/sqfr price…

We need a resident expert in this area of c.v……..[/quote]

It’s probably 2nd or 3rd generation ownership. I can’t imagine why the grandchildren of the original owners don’t just move in because of the huge property tax savings they’d get. That an the river rock fireplace.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=rockingtime]I have school going kids and I’d like them to be going to above average schools not the top ranking schools or the bottom of the barrel
If my kids are smart enough they’d make it to decent college and that too with scholarship.[/quote]

But what happens if your kids are just average or below average? They’re more likely to be influenced by the other kids.[/quote]

And that influence would be good. Much better for average kids to be in an environment where academic achievement is a good thing, than where it’s a bad thing. (And yes, there really are schools where the social environment discourages achievement.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]Well that wins the award for the most disgusting thing I’ve read today.[/quote]

It is disgusting, what they did to the man with the electric car.

Or are you talking about a different post – perhaps the one with the story about how the police and DA whitewashed the incident where the cop broke a guy’s jaw just for kicks?

[/quote]

no, this part…

[quote=spdrun]scaredyclassic — I hope the Santa Monica “hero” gets hit by a bus and ends up a quadriplegic, sucking his supper through a straw. One less violent asshole on the streets, telling people what to do. And hope the victim ends up owning part of the city of Santa Monica, so to speak.

[/quote]

I’m as disgusted as anyone by cops abusing people under the color of authority. I too want violent assholes off the street. Whether cops or other. But wishing someone gets hit by a buss and ends up a quadriplegic is at least as bad a mindset as cops who believe their authority allows them to abuse the people they’re supposed to protect.

[SK in CV]

Well that wins the award for the most disgusting thing I’ve read today.

[SK in CV]

Transfers between spouses aren’t taxable, nor do they change basis. The gain between the original purchase and the last sale is under $500K, so no taxable gain.

I’m not sure, but I’m guessing that similar rules apply for the purpose of property tax assessments in California. Transfers between spouses don’t generally trigger re-assessments.

And one of the transfers, through a quit-claim deed, wouldn’t be a sale anyway. Under these circumstances, it would be a (probably) non-reportable gift. Gifts between spouses are eligible for an unlimited exclusion.

I’m not sure why anyone would want to do this.

[SK in CV]

Tax on capital gains = 0

[SK in CV]

I would totally tear out those ugly fireplaces and put in a river rock fireplace.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]

I don’t think people buy these places to cash flow them.

Yeah, but what kind of crack did you have to be smoking to buy a non-cash-flowing place in 2011?[/quote]

SFHs in CV have never been good cash flow properties. Not at the height of the market, not at the bottom of trough. There was positive cash flow for an all-cash buyer. But prices have never been based on what they could rent for.

[Author]

Posts