|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 11, 2009 6:04:23 GMT -5
Yeah, thanks Pirate. I didn't realize Article IV provides the mechanism for states to be split apart or join together.
|
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Jul 11, 2009 8:42:51 GMT -5
Duh...states' rights went out the window a long time ago when every state in the union firmly attached their lips to the federal money tit. Too funny! ;D New York has a provision for secession...though I'm not sure what the process is. Its been a recurring debate on Long Island, whether they should become the 51st state. Long Islander's argument is that they get less return for the amount of taxes they pay to the state. Then there was a time when Staten Islanders were contemplating whether they should become the 51st state, or to secede and join New Jersey. Also, didn't Key West pass a declaration that they have seceded from the US, but it was non-binding because the town council forgot to sign it before they passed out from the party to celebrate the secession? |
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jul 11, 2009 13:51:29 GMT -5
Yeah, thanks Pirate. I didn't realize Article IV provides the mechanism for states to be split apart or join together. Article IV, Section 3 Section 3 - New States New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. |
|
|
|
Post by shockjock on Jul 11, 2009 17:32:22 GMT -5
This should be an interesting case.... and about time. The federal government doesn't make any restrictions on marriage when it comes to Federal Tax Law. The rules are uniform. If they start making restrictions for gay marriages, things are going to get very confusing and complex and discriminitory. Just to give you all of you a little idea of the rediculousness of the current tax code, I will give you my situation. My partner is on my employee health care coverage as my domestic partner. Sounds great right! Did you know that under federal tax laws, every dime my company pays for my partner's health benefits premiums (about $4,000 per year) is included in my W2 as taxable income to me. This would not be the case if we were married (and straight). This would not be the case if he was my child. I'm not even sure this would be the case if he was considered a dependent (like an elderly parent). I pay approximately $1000 more in taxes than my straight, married co-workers. More taxes WITHOUT representation. I'm thinking about having my own Boston tea party. The issue is with the majority's legal meaning of word marriage, it seems to create a lot of controversy over the allowing a same-sex partners type union to receive same-treatment as the time tested heterosexuals marriage. Why not try finding another word ,( like Fairage or ...?)that could be given the same rights as the traditional word "marriage" You create a new word ( or term) for same -sex couples that has the same ties and benefits as the established term "marriage". Ground roots drive for a legal binding bill of your own using a new term without creating all the controversy! Done deal? I would hope! Probably not! |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 12, 2009 17:48:24 GMT -5
This should be an interesting case.... and about time. The federal government doesn't make any restrictions on marriage when it comes to Federal Tax Law. The rules are uniform. If they start making restrictions for gay marriages, things are going to get very confusing and complex and discriminitory. Just to give you all of you a little idea of the ridiculousness of the current tax code, I will give you my situation. My partner is on my employee health care coverage as my domestic partner. Sounds great right! Did you know that under federal tax laws, every dime my company pays for my partner's health benefits premiums (about $4,000 per year) is included in my W2 as taxable income to me. This would not be the case if we were married (and straight). This would not be the case if he was my child. I'm not even sure this would be the case if he was considered a dependent (like an elderly parent). I pay approximately $1000 more in taxes than my straight, married co-workers. More taxes WITHOUT representation. I'm thinking about having my own Boston tea party. Thanks for the info...most don't understand the inequality already in existence from insurance and tax side of things. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 13, 2009 19:48:18 GMT -5
The issue is with the majority's legal meaning of word marriage, it seems to create a lot of controversy over the allowing a same-sex partners type union to receive same-treatment as the time tested heterosexuals marriage. Why not try finding another word ,( like Fairage or ...?)that could be given the same rights as the traditional word "marriage" You create a new word ( or term) for same -sex couples that has the same ties and benefits as the established term "marriage". Ground roots drive for a legal binding bill of your own using a new term without creating all the controversy! Done deal? I would hope! Probably not! Sounds like "separate but equal". There's no sane reason they should have to use a different term, and it's insulting to the group that you propose it to. |
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jul 14, 2009 9:40:37 GMT -5
Volley tx..
The tax you pay is Federal tax based upon Federal law ..not pertaining to states rights to tax .
The insurance you pay is to companies that have deemed..( right or wrong) that your lifestyle and sexuality practices cost more in insuring the traditional marriages?
..The word Marriage is a traditional RELIGIOUS one with Historical precedent.
Your lifestyle is less than established in term of historical significance. 1 or 2 generations in only a limited part of society should not determine or underscore 2,000 years of traditional practices.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Jul 14, 2009 14:06:32 GMT -5
That is a absolute blantant lie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The health care costs for a child are much more then that of an adult, regardless of the adult's orientation.
Most companies that provide insurance to same sex couples simply call it One + One. It does not raise the companies cost for providing group coverage for the company.
As always Billdo has no idea what he is talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jul 14, 2009 16:07:45 GMT -5
mmm
"The health care costs for a child are much more then that of an adult, regardless of the adult's orientation."
Gee, unless that child's parents are addicted to drugs... alcohol...and didn't practice safe sex.
Insurance companies rate insurance based upon RISK...
Then of course ..Gay couples NEVER engage upon unsafe sex...thus spreading AIDS throughout the community.
Then again..conservatives with their lifestyle... didn't engage in that activity in such numbers as to spread it among the conservative community..
It is much more a liberal disease...and cost us much more.
The conservative lifestyle wouldn't have crack babies...
Cocaine Babies....
or parents that were high on booze thus setting the kids back years in development.
The liberal lifestyle DOES COST MORE...not only at birth...but during preschool...early development and even through job training and then in diseases that kill prematurely.
No wonder you want FREE HEALTH CARE ..for all your liberal BS...so you can live like Calif...everything all the time ..and let others pay for it.
Why do insurance companies fight against insuring Gays and allowing same benefits?
IT WILL COST THEM MORE.
now spin away and call me stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Jul 14, 2009 16:31:07 GMT -5
Don't have to...all one has to do is read your response.
All you do is lie!
|
|
|
|
Post by VolleyTX on Jul 14, 2009 16:36:41 GMT -5
This is absolutely untrue... AND IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT TO WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. The bottom line is that the federal government makes ME pay taxes on all the money my company pays for my partner's insurance. This has NOTHING to do with the cost of the healthcare. This is the exact thing that some pundits have thrown around as a way to pay for a new healtcare system ..... Tax everyone on the healthcare their companies provide for them.... treat it like income.
The facts are.... I pay more taxes to the federal governement because I'm gay.... AND i get fewer rights.
Why do you keep bring this up. I wasn't complaining about the cost of my partner's health care. I was complaining that the government TAXES me on it! It shows up in my W2 as income received. For God's sake, get on topic!
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jul 14, 2009 16:40:27 GMT -5
then answer my question,
Why do insurance companies fight against it.
answer..studies show that during the 80's and 90' s gay men lived 20 years LESS than straight men.
Today with all the research on aids and BILLIONS spent,,
.. the death Age is becoming older.
Billions spent by the rest of society on aids..the liberal lifestyle disease...that has spread to all parts of the community.Spread by a certain segment of men who don't practice safe sex and choose to kill as many as they can infect.
you wont answer or debate..cause you know I am right.
this is for pickle dude ..not Volley Tx..it seemed a little harsh when I read it..sorry but I get worked up too..
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jul 14, 2009 16:55:12 GMT -5
Is it true that domestic partner health benefits are treated as taxable income?
Yes. Unfortunately, domestic partner health insurance is treated as taxable income for federal purposes. Your employer’s contribution to your partner’s part of the premium will be taxable to you. You will pay income tax and Social Security payroll tax on the portion of the insurance premium that your employer contributes to your partner’s policy. However, if you claim your partner as a dependent on your federal tax return, this would not be taxed. To qualify as a dependent, your partner must receive more than half of his or her support from you. For more information about this issue, visit this HRC webpage.
There I know the issue..Is it fair..No..
But Life isn't fair always...and OBAMA signed a new law ending this last week?
Now any body can get the same insurance as a married couple without being married..in fact heterocouples abuse this more.
DRIVING health care up more.
Everybody is now married.
There ..Happy?
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jul 14, 2009 17:52:56 GMT -5
It's good to see that you can finally admit that citizens such as VolleyTX pay an unequal share of the government tax burden in regard to their partnership status. It sounds like you are okay with this extra taxation without extra representation. If so, please mail back your Conservative membership card within the next 7 days, or you will be visited by enforcers who will remove it from your possession.
|
|
|
|
Post by shockjock on Jul 14, 2009 20:23:44 GMT -5
The issue is with the majority's legal meaning of word marriage, it seems to create a lot of controversy over the allowing a same-sex partners type union to receive same-treatment as the time tested heterosexuals marriage. Why not try finding another word ,( like Fairage or ...?)that could be given the same rights as the traditional word "marriage" You create a new word ( or term) for same -sex couples that has the same ties and benefits as the established term "marriage". Ground roots drive for a legal binding bill of your own using a new term without creating all the controversy! Done deal? I would hope! Probably not! Sounds like "separate but equal". There's no sane reason they should have to use a different term, and it's insulting to the group that you propose it to. Just looking for an easy answer to a dividing issue! Why should heterosexuals marriage get a tax break? One reason ,heterosexual marriage can creat new taxpapers. This is full circle! Same-sex unions can't, unless they get help from the opposite sex out of their union! Tax advantage to the taxpayer producers! But I guess Obama's changed that? |
|
