The family structure is "breaking" because the couple now typically both work and have career goals. Often, neither is willing to make sacrifices in order to have a family. This either leads to choosing to not have children or neglected children. Also, people marry almost on a whim nowadays. Marriage used to mean something, not to be entered into lightly, and people fought harder to make it work. Now marriages are disposable to many people. Kids are raised surrounded by this attitude and learn that it's acceptable. They see it on TV, they see it at home, they see it in their friends' homes, and they learn that it's okay to have "starter marriages".
Yes, times have changed and people may have become more selfish and commit themselves too easily to undertakings they can not carry through, but I think it is way too simplistic to blame the "breakdown of the family structure" on the above. I am not at all convinced that being trapped in an unhappy marriage is a better option. I suspect there were many many more unhappily married couples 50 years ago. Not to mention unhappily married gay men and women. What a dreadful predicament! It is complicated to live in a permissive world but to live in a world governed by a restrictive moral code would be absolute hell.
Yes, times have changed and people may have become more selfish and commit themselves too easily to undertakings they can not carry through, but I think it is way too simplistic to blame the "breakdown of the family structure" on the above. I am not at all convinced that being trapped in an unhappy marriage is a better option. I suspect there were many many more unhappily married couples 50 years ago. Not to mention unhappily married gay men and women. What a dreadful predicament! It is complicated to live in a permissive world but to live in a world governed by a restrictive moral code would be absolute hell.
That restrictive hell though is personal.Arn't we all in it to some degree or another.I agree with your point but cellibate people are not all tormented by their desires.Sometimes the opposite can be true.I once stayed at a buddhist monestry, for a few days and the monks where a delight to be around,far from suffering our ills they radiated warmth and inner peace.Isn't that level of spiritual serenity missing most in peoples lives?
That restrictive hell though is personal.Arn't we all in it to some degree or another.I agree with your point but cellibate people are not all tormented by their desires.Sometimes the opposite can be true.I once stayed at a buddhist monestry, for a few days and the monks where a delight to be around,far from suffering our ills they radiated warmth and inner peace.Isn't that level of spiritual serenity missing most in peoples lives?
Yes , but celibacy was their choice. I have no problem with anybody practicing celibacy but I would hate to have it forced upon me. It may be the kind of spiritual serenity missing from your life, but for me spiritual serenity is not missing. The point though, is not whether you are celibate or serene, but the fact that an exterior moral code dictates that what you are is not worthy of expression. That may sound OK to some people, specially if they have never experienced the kind of inner turmoil and isolation this sort of thing can cause. Personally I would not wish it upon anybody.
Yes , but celibacy was their choice. I have no problem with anybody practicing celibacy but I would hate to have it forced upon me. It may be the kind of spiritual serenity missing from your life, but for me spiritual serenity is not missing. The point though, is not whether you are celibate or serene, but the fact that an exterior moral code dictates that what you are is not worthy of expression. That may sound OK to some people, specially if they have never experienced the kind of inner turmoil and isolation this sort of thing can cause. Personally I would not wish it upon anybody.
Yes and to break out of it and to be stoned to death or decapitated for a minor diversion of the rules,just to keep the religion alive.How beautiful is that?
In comparisson to some places the West is incredibly free,not free enough in my opinion,but it's doing pretty damb well.It brings with it a lot of temptations but isn't it up to us as individuals to know where we stand,isn't that the beauty of Western culture?I think it is.Some will call me a liberal and I say isn't liberty important to you?
I certainly hope it does but I just can't help but wonder what their returns are when they are spending so much money on advertising. I can't watch a football game without every single commercial break having a viagra/cialis commercial on. If you have ED are you really that unaware of what's out there that by seeing 15 ED commercials during 1 football game is going to make you get up and call your doctor?
Ideally they are in fact using those profits to work on other medicines, ones that will really benefit humanity as a whole but I'm concerned they aren't doing that. Right now there are pharmaceutical companies spending millions of dollars to create a "viagra for women." Unlike the original viagra which was a mistake (as you pointed out) they are actually now working on medicine with the sole purpose of creating the "viagra for women."
But, to a point I do agree with you. Viagra is bringing in loads for money for these guys and I hope they are investing that money back into research for diseases that plague humanity.
If they want more revenue they'd better push a legalization of Prostitution and bring it out of the darkness. Otherwise, you're just going to get a lot of guys buying those pills with hard-ons and a lack of women to insert and test it out. The drugs don't get you a woman.
I agree with you. I would not advocate anyone staying in a bad marriage. I was simply making the point that nowadays, people often so quickly rush into marriage knowing that if it doesn't work out, they can just divorce. This rather than taking their time to make sure it really is the right thing, then fighting harder to make the marriage work through difficult times. I'm just saying people enter into (and exit out of) marriage extremely lightly, which is a huge reason there is a breakdown of the family. The poster I was responding to was implying this was because of a rise in homosexuality, that somehow, this "permissive behaviour" is ruining family values. The reality is, the number of homosexuals per capita hasn't changed. Rather the number of homosexuals who are no longer in hiding has changed... and this isn't why family values have deteriorated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
Yes, times have changed and people may have become more selfish and commit themselves too easily to undertakings they can not carry through, but I think it is way too simplistic to blame the "breakdown of the family structure" on the above. I am not at all convinced that being trapped in an unhappy marriage is a better option. I suspect there were many many more unhappily married couples 50 years ago. Not to mention unhappily married gay men and women. What a dreadful predicament! It is complicated to live in a permissive world but to live in a world governed by a restrictive moral code would be absolute hell.
Really? In California it costs about $7,200 per year for an individual health insurance for a 23 year old male without any prior health issues. That rate is discounted and not otherwise found in the marketplace too. It's a CORBRA plan from State employment. That 5k is also taxable. You will therefore only have 3-4k for health insurance.
CORBRA is bad, really, really, really bad. CORBRA was avaialble to me when I was in between jobs and we all knew it was a horrible, horrible deal if you had to pay for it. There are plenty of other, cheaper options out there that provide better coverage.
And actually no, that 5k isn't taxable. It's a 5k tax CREDIT meaning it's the equivalent of a 15-20k+ deduction (possibly more depending on your tax bracket).
CORBRA is bad, really, really, really bad. CORBRA was avaialble to me when I was in between jobs and we all knew it was a horrible, horrible deal if you had to pay for it. There are plenty of other, cheaper options out there that provide better coverage.
And actually no, that 5k isn't taxable. It's a 5k tax CREDIT meaning it's the equivalent of a 15-20k+ deduction (possibly more depending on your tax bracket).
So does that mean a $0 deduction when one pays AMT? Besides I think Obama said the McCain's 5k health insurance money would be taxable, where the current employer paid amount is not. In the case of the healthy 23 year old male $7,200 was the least expensive way to maintain the coverage and that's money that has been taxed so it's equal to 8-12k. It's a CPAs question and the Republicans would unfortunately need to be in charge.
On topic: I hope Apple continues and expands the support of worthwhile causes. It makes me feel good about the company I am buying from.
That directly plays into my point. Who's to define what a "right" is? To me, the "right" is having the state recognize the union and this proposition does nothing to oppose that and in fact allows for all the same legal rights as marriage does, so exactly what right is being violated? If marriage is nothing but a word than why are people so adamant about having it?
Prop 8 limits the definition of marriage but also contains the intent to not recognize same-sex marriages.
The legal status of marriage is very well recognized internationally. Other countries might not recognize Californian civil Unions. This leads to situations where a same sex married US citizen can not receive equal protection when abroad.
California wouldn't have to recognize foreign same sex marriages, which has consequences for the legal position of same sex married foreigners.
If the federal government decides that (new) rights are (only) going to be available to married couples, then those rights would not necessarily be available to civil union partners in California as to married couples.
Basically, a civil union does not garantuee the same legal stability that a marriage does. It's a different legal status.
In order to achieve stable, legal equality, you need a unified legal status with one name and one definition.
I agree with you. I would not advocate anyone staying in a bad marriage. I was simply making the point that nowadays, people often so quickly rush into marriage knowing that if it doesn't work out, they can just divorce. This rather than taking their time to make sure it really is the right thing, then fighting harder to make the marriage work through difficult times. I'm just saying people enter into (and exit out of) marriage extremely lightly, which is a huge reason there is a breakdown of the family. The poster I was responding to was implying this was because of a rise in homosexuality, that somehow, this "permissive behaviour" is ruining family values. The reality is, the number of homosexuals per capita hasn't changed. Rather the number of homosexuals who are no longer in hiding has changed... and this isn't why family values have deteriorated.
And I agree with you My post was basically building on your post. The idea that homosexuality is result of 'permissive society' is naive to the extreme. My argument is that to a degree the same applies to marriages and divorce.
That directly plays into my point. Who's to define what a "right" is? To me, the "right" is having the state recognize the union and this proposition does nothing to oppose that and in fact allows for all the same legal rights as marriage does, so exactly what right is being violated? If marriage is nothing but a word than why are people so adamant about having it?
Why not use the following convention:
Write Marriage when referring to Holy Matrimony and marriage when referring to marriage by law.
The capital M emphasises the spiritual nature of the Holy Union and distinguishes it from the wordly contract.
When I write "God is good" you immediately know that I don't mean any mythical god.
When you write "Marriage is the most sacred expression of love" I immediately know that you don't mean any civil union.
Basically, a civil union does not garantuee the same legal stability that a marriage does. It's a different legal status.
In order to achieve stable, legal equality, you need a unified legal status with one name and one definition.
However, it's an apples and oranges comparison. The union of a man and a woman vis-a-vis the union of a man and a man are not the same thing in essence. There is no problem having 'marriage' for a man and a woman, and 'civil union' for a man and a man. There is no need for them to be equal -- legally or otherwise.
I'm 100% against how gay marriage would effect the rest of my family living in California.
Interesting choice of tenses - "would affect" instead of "already affects" I would imagine their lives must be utterly hellish right about now, and actually have been for the last few months. Tell me, how exactly have they been impacted by the 10,000+ same-sex marriages that have pumped a fair chunk of money into the Californian economy?
(by the way...if you're offended that I'm responding a few days after you posted this, I've been kinda busy with life to just dedicate my time to the frantic perusal of this 20+ page thread)
So does that mean a $0 deduction when one pays AMT? Besides I think Obama said the McCain's 5k health insurance money would be taxable, where the current employer paid amount is not. In the case of the healthy 23 year old male $7,200 was the least expensive way to maintain the coverage and that's money that has been taxed so it's equal to 8-12k. It's a CPAs question and the Republicans would unfortunately need to be in charge.
On topic: I hope Apple continues and expands the support of worthwhile causes. It makes me feel good about the company I am buying from.
No, it means a 5k tax credit regardless of how much you pay in taxes. And of course Obama said it would be taxed - he's going for votes (just as McCain is) but that's just not even remotely true. McCain's plan would give you a 5k tax credit at the end of the year so that CORBRA plan mentioned earlier to cost $7200 would actually cost you $2,200 (less than $200 a month) and, as I said earlier, there are much, much better and cheaper plans out there.
Obama is trying to say McCain is going to tax the amount your company pays on your behalf. So, let's say you pony up 2k a year for you insurance and your company covers 3k. You have 2k worth of non-taxable deductions (non-income tax, this amount still gets taxed for SS and Medicare). Under McCain's plan you'd pay the taxes on both the 3k and the 2k which, depending on your tax bracket, is between $800 and $1500 and then at the end of the year you'd get a 5k tax credit - not a deduction but an actual credit so a $ for $ deduction in your income tax.
I've asked my company and I know for a fact that this would actually net me an extra 2500 to 3k a year in cold hard cash but I know that's not the case for everyone. And, as I said in a previous post it's all hypothetical as no democratic controlled congress is going to pass anything that McCain wants. On the bright side having McCain in would prevent the democratic controlled (and possibly filibuster proof senate) congress from passing any completely insane crap like, oh, idk, the nationalizing of 401ks and IRAs that House Democrats just presented on the floor a couple weeks ago (yes, you should be very, very upset with that).
I was saddened to read today that Apple is publicly opposing the California Proposition 8 and donating money so that it can be defeated. While I defend a company?s right and privilege to be socially active, I think Apple is taking a huge risk by taking a stand on such a vital issue in our culture today. I can understand your desire to support your employees who think gay marriage is a good idea, but you risk alienating millions of people who, like me, feel that if indeed marriage is a ?right?, it is a right created and given by God and not by men. Marriage was God?s idea, and he has ideas of what it should be and how it should work. We do not have the right to redefine what it is. Indeed, ?gay marriage? is an oxymoron. Now, if American society wants to define some other kind of relationship between homosexuals, I suppose it can, but cannot and should not call it marriage.
You have just likely spent much more than $100,000 to support this issue, in that you?ve risked the alienation of millions of customers (we bought our first Mac in 1988) who might ?Think Different? about spending their money to support a cause that is not only against God?s ideal but also detrimental to our society. I hope and pray you will reconsider.
Wow. I just want to say that for the most part, if I were to be swayed - as a non-believer - by the posts of those most vocal about their "Christian" faith and how the failure of Prop 8 would so badly impact their lives and the lives of other people...how sinful those who are in consenting relationships with others of the same sex/gender...I would be so turned off from Christianity. As it is, I identify as a Christian, yet am appalled to be lumped in with so many people who refuse to show love to other people. So many stones are being thrown, so I must assume that so many of you must be without sin. You must have already removed that plank from your own eye to feel justified in pointing out the speck in other peoples...but perhaps it is because of that plank that you think you see a speck in someone else's eye when there may not be one...at least not the one you think you see. In any case, did Jesus not say that the first commandment was to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your sould, and with all your mind...the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Do you forget who your neighbor is? It sure sounds like it to me. Your neighbor includes the European Socialist who won't be voting on Prop 8; your neighbor is the gay couple who has been faithfully together for the past 30 years while the heterosexual couple down the street is getting a divorce after 3 1/2 years (or 55 hours after their Vegas wedding); your neighbor is the buddhist CEO of a company who makes social decisions that you may not agree with and does not necessarily adhere to the religious dogma to which you uphold.
Interesting choice of tenses - "would affect" instead of "already affects" I would imagine their lives must be utterly hellish right about now, and actually have been for the last few months. Tell me, how exactly have they been impacted by the 10,000+ same-sex marriages that have pumped a fair chunk of money into the Californian economy?
(by the way...if you're offended that I'm responding a few days after you posted this, I've been kinda busy with life to just dedicate my time to the frantic perusal of this 20+ page thread)
If, and/or when, you reply to my posts(s), is of no consequence to me. If you want your own questions answered, then I refer you to the post by Concerned Mom. There's is no need for me to repeat what she said. Now run along.
If, and/or when, you reply to my posts(s), is of no consequence to me. If you want your own questions answered, then I refer you to the post by Concerned Mom. There's is no need for me to repeat what she said. Now run along.
No, all you need to do is explain what's so horrific about those happenings.
From what I read there were only two things that appeared excessive:
1.) An accusation was made about pornographic material in school libraries. Assuming that the material is pornographic, which I highly doubt, then I agree it shouldn't be in a school library. It should be quite obvious to anyone with a brain bigger than the size of a pea, that pornographic material in school libraries is not an unavoidable consequence of gay people getting married.
2.) The suggestion that gay couples were "testing" businesses such as restaurants by visiting them and then overtly "fondling" each other. Assuming this is even true, I don't think that that's appropriate behaviour for a heterosexual couple so it's not for a gay couple either. As with 1.), these occurrences needn't be a consequence of allowing gays to marry.
Comments
The family structure is "breaking" because the couple now typically both work and have career goals. Often, neither is willing to make sacrifices in order to have a family. This either leads to choosing to not have children or neglected children. Also, people marry almost on a whim nowadays. Marriage used to mean something, not to be entered into lightly, and people fought harder to make it work. Now marriages are disposable to many people. Kids are raised surrounded by this attitude and learn that it's acceptable. They see it on TV, they see it at home, they see it in their friends' homes, and they learn that it's okay to have "starter marriages".
Yes, times have changed and people may have become more selfish and commit themselves too easily to undertakings they can not carry through, but I think it is way too simplistic to blame the "breakdown of the family structure" on the above. I am not at all convinced that being trapped in an unhappy marriage is a better option. I suspect there were many many more unhappily married couples 50 years ago. Not to mention unhappily married gay men and women. What a dreadful predicament! It is complicated to live in a permissive world but to live in a world governed by a restrictive moral code would be absolute hell.
Yes, times have changed and people may have become more selfish and commit themselves too easily to undertakings they can not carry through, but I think it is way too simplistic to blame the "breakdown of the family structure" on the above. I am not at all convinced that being trapped in an unhappy marriage is a better option. I suspect there were many many more unhappily married couples 50 years ago. Not to mention unhappily married gay men and women. What a dreadful predicament! It is complicated to live in a permissive world but to live in a world governed by a restrictive moral code would be absolute hell.
That restrictive hell though is personal.Arn't we all in it to some degree or another.I agree with your point but cellibate people are not all tormented by their desires.Sometimes the opposite can be true.I once stayed at a buddhist monestry, for a few days and the monks where a delight to be around,far from suffering our ills they radiated warmth and inner peace.Isn't that level of spiritual serenity missing most in peoples lives?
That restrictive hell though is personal.Arn't we all in it to some degree or another.I agree with your point but cellibate people are not all tormented by their desires.Sometimes the opposite can be true.I once stayed at a buddhist monestry, for a few days and the monks where a delight to be around,far from suffering our ills they radiated warmth and inner peace.Isn't that level of spiritual serenity missing most in peoples lives?
Yes , but celibacy was their choice. I have no problem with anybody practicing celibacy but I would hate to have it forced upon me. It may be the kind of spiritual serenity missing from your life, but for me spiritual serenity is not missing. The point though, is not whether you are celibate or serene, but the fact that an exterior moral code dictates that what you are is not worthy of expression. That may sound OK to some people, specially if they have never experienced the kind of inner turmoil and isolation this sort of thing can cause. Personally I would not wish it upon anybody.
Yes , but celibacy was their choice. I have no problem with anybody practicing celibacy but I would hate to have it forced upon me. It may be the kind of spiritual serenity missing from your life, but for me spiritual serenity is not missing. The point though, is not whether you are celibate or serene, but the fact that an exterior moral code dictates that what you are is not worthy of expression. That may sound OK to some people, specially if they have never experienced the kind of inner turmoil and isolation this sort of thing can cause. Personally I would not wish it upon anybody.
Yes and to break out of it and to be stoned to death or decapitated for a minor diversion of the rules,just to keep the religion alive.How beautiful is that?
In comparisson to some places the West is incredibly free,not free enough in my opinion,but it's doing pretty damb well.It brings with it a lot of temptations but isn't it up to us as individuals to know where we stand,isn't that the beauty of Western culture?I think it is.Some will call me a liberal and I say isn't liberty important to you?
I certainly hope it does but I just can't help but wonder what their returns are when they are spending so much money on advertising. I can't watch a football game without every single commercial break having a viagra/cialis commercial on. If you have ED are you really that unaware of what's out there that by seeing 15 ED commercials during 1 football game is going to make you get up and call your doctor?
Ideally they are in fact using those profits to work on other medicines, ones that will really benefit humanity as a whole but I'm concerned they aren't doing that. Right now there are pharmaceutical companies spending millions of dollars to create a "viagra for women." Unlike the original viagra which was a mistake (as you pointed out) they are actually now working on medicine with the sole purpose of creating the "viagra for women."
But, to a point I do agree with you. Viagra is bringing in loads for money for these guys and I hope they are investing that money back into research for diseases that plague humanity.
If they want more revenue they'd better push a legalization of Prostitution and bring it out of the darkness. Otherwise, you're just going to get a lot of guys buying those pills with hard-ons and a lack of women to insert and test it out. The drugs don't get you a woman.
Yes, times have changed and people may have become more selfish and commit themselves too easily to undertakings they can not carry through, but I think it is way too simplistic to blame the "breakdown of the family structure" on the above. I am not at all convinced that being trapped in an unhappy marriage is a better option. I suspect there were many many more unhappily married couples 50 years ago. Not to mention unhappily married gay men and women. What a dreadful predicament! It is complicated to live in a permissive world but to live in a world governed by a restrictive moral code would be absolute hell.
Really? In California it costs about $7,200 per year for an individual health insurance for a 23 year old male without any prior health issues. That rate is discounted and not otherwise found in the marketplace too. It's a CORBRA plan from State employment. That 5k is also taxable. You will therefore only have 3-4k for health insurance.
CORBRA is bad, really, really, really bad. CORBRA was avaialble to me when I was in between jobs and we all knew it was a horrible, horrible deal if you had to pay for it. There are plenty of other, cheaper options out there that provide better coverage.
And actually no, that 5k isn't taxable. It's a 5k tax CREDIT meaning it's the equivalent of a 15-20k+ deduction (possibly more depending on your tax bracket).
And actually no, that 5k isn't taxable. It's a 5k tax CREDIT
Is it proposed that this will be an annual thing, or is just a one-off?
CORBRA is bad, really, really, really bad. CORBRA was avaialble to me when I was in between jobs and we all knew it was a horrible, horrible deal if you had to pay for it. There are plenty of other, cheaper options out there that provide better coverage.
And actually no, that 5k isn't taxable. It's a 5k tax CREDIT meaning it's the equivalent of a 15-20k+ deduction (possibly more depending on your tax bracket).
So does that mean a $0 deduction when one pays AMT? Besides I think Obama said the McCain's 5k health insurance money would be taxable, where the current employer paid amount is not. In the case of the healthy 23 year old male $7,200 was the least expensive way to maintain the coverage and that's money that has been taxed so it's equal to 8-12k. It's a CPAs question and the Republicans would unfortunately need to be in charge.
On topic: I hope Apple continues and expands the support of worthwhile causes. It makes me feel good about the company I am buying from.
That directly plays into my point. Who's to define what a "right" is? To me, the "right" is having the state recognize the union and this proposition does nothing to oppose that and in fact allows for all the same legal rights as marriage does, so exactly what right is being violated? If marriage is nothing but a word than why are people so adamant about having it?
Prop 8 limits the definition of marriage but also contains the intent to not recognize same-sex marriages.
The legal status of marriage is very well recognized internationally. Other countries might not recognize Californian civil Unions. This leads to situations where a same sex married US citizen can not receive equal protection when abroad.
California wouldn't have to recognize foreign same sex marriages, which has consequences for the legal position of same sex married foreigners.
If the federal government decides that (new) rights are (only) going to be available to married couples, then those rights would not necessarily be available to civil union partners in California as to married couples.
Basically, a civil union does not garantuee the same legal stability that a marriage does. It's a different legal status.
In order to achieve stable, legal equality, you need a unified legal status with one name and one definition.
I agree with you. I would not advocate anyone staying in a bad marriage. I was simply making the point that nowadays, people often so quickly rush into marriage knowing that if it doesn't work out, they can just divorce. This rather than taking their time to make sure it really is the right thing, then fighting harder to make the marriage work through difficult times. I'm just saying people enter into (and exit out of) marriage extremely lightly, which is a huge reason there is a breakdown of the family. The poster I was responding to was implying this was because of a rise in homosexuality, that somehow, this "permissive behaviour" is ruining family values. The reality is, the number of homosexuals per capita hasn't changed. Rather the number of homosexuals who are no longer in hiding has changed... and this isn't why family values have deteriorated.
And I agree with you
That directly plays into my point. Who's to define what a "right" is? To me, the "right" is having the state recognize the union and this proposition does nothing to oppose that and in fact allows for all the same legal rights as marriage does, so exactly what right is being violated? If marriage is nothing but a word than why are people so adamant about having it?
Why not use the following convention:
Write Marriage when referring to Holy Matrimony and marriage when referring to marriage by law.
The capital M emphasises the spiritual nature of the Holy Union and distinguishes it from the wordly contract.
When I write "God is good" you immediately know that I don't mean any mythical god.
When you write "Marriage is the most sacred expression of love" I immediately know that you don't mean any civil union.
Basically, a civil union does not garantuee the same legal stability that a marriage does. It's a different legal status.
In order to achieve stable, legal equality, you need a unified legal status with one name and one definition.
However, it's an apples and oranges comparison. The union of a man and a woman vis-a-vis the union of a man and a man are not the same thing in essence. There is no problem having 'marriage' for a man and a woman, and 'civil union' for a man and a man. There is no need for them to be equal -- legally or otherwise.
I'm 100% against how gay marriage would effect the rest of my family living in California.
Interesting choice of tenses - "would affect" instead of "already affects" I would imagine their lives must be utterly hellish right about now, and actually have been for the last few months. Tell me, how exactly have they been impacted by the 10,000+ same-sex marriages that have pumped a fair chunk of money into the Californian economy?
(by the way...if you're offended that I'm responding a few days after you posted this, I've been kinda busy with life to just dedicate my time to the frantic perusal of this 20+ page thread)
Is it proposed that this will be an annual thing, or is just a one-off?
Annual - but all of this is hypothetical as there's no way McCain could get that pushed through a democratic controlled congress...
So does that mean a $0 deduction when one pays AMT? Besides I think Obama said the McCain's 5k health insurance money would be taxable, where the current employer paid amount is not. In the case of the healthy 23 year old male $7,200 was the least expensive way to maintain the coverage and that's money that has been taxed so it's equal to 8-12k. It's a CPAs question and the Republicans would unfortunately need to be in charge.
On topic: I hope Apple continues and expands the support of worthwhile causes. It makes me feel good about the company I am buying from.
No, it means a 5k tax credit regardless of how much you pay in taxes. And of course Obama said it would be taxed - he's going for votes (just as McCain is) but that's just not even remotely true. McCain's plan would give you a 5k tax credit at the end of the year so that CORBRA plan mentioned earlier to cost $7200 would actually cost you $2,200 (less than $200 a month) and, as I said earlier, there are much, much better and cheaper plans out there.
Obama is trying to say McCain is going to tax the amount your company pays on your behalf. So, let's say you pony up 2k a year for you insurance and your company covers 3k. You have 2k worth of non-taxable deductions (non-income tax, this amount still gets taxed for SS and Medicare). Under McCain's plan you'd pay the taxes on both the 3k and the 2k which, depending on your tax bracket, is between $800 and $1500 and then at the end of the year you'd get a 5k tax credit - not a deduction but an actual credit so a $ for $ deduction in your income tax.
I've asked my company and I know for a fact that this would actually net me an extra 2500 to 3k a year in cold hard cash but I know that's not the case for everyone. And, as I said in a previous post it's all hypothetical as no democratic controlled congress is going to pass anything that McCain wants. On the bright side having McCain in would prevent the democratic controlled (and possibly filibuster proof senate) congress from passing any completely insane crap like, oh, idk, the nationalizing of 401ks and IRAs that House Democrats just presented on the floor a couple weeks ago (yes, you should be very, very upset with that).
http://runhorserun.blogspot.com/2008...ing-401ks.html
(Follow the links on that page for non-blog entries)
I was saddened to read today that Apple is publicly opposing the California Proposition 8 and donating money so that it can be defeated. While I defend a company?s right and privilege to be socially active, I think Apple is taking a huge risk by taking a stand on such a vital issue in our culture today. I can understand your desire to support your employees who think gay marriage is a good idea, but you risk alienating millions of people who, like me, feel that if indeed marriage is a ?right?, it is a right created and given by God and not by men. Marriage was God?s idea, and he has ideas of what it should be and how it should work. We do not have the right to redefine what it is. Indeed, ?gay marriage? is an oxymoron. Now, if American society wants to define some other kind of relationship between homosexuals, I suppose it can, but cannot and should not call it marriage.
You have just likely spent much more than $100,000 to support this issue, in that you?ve risked the alienation of millions of customers (we bought our first Mac in 1988) who might ?Think Different? about spending their money to support a cause that is not only against God?s ideal but also detrimental to our society. I hope and pray you will reconsider.
Interesting choice of tenses - "would affect" instead of "already affects" I would imagine their lives must be utterly hellish right about now, and actually have been for the last few months. Tell me, how exactly have they been impacted by the 10,000+ same-sex marriages that have pumped a fair chunk of money into the Californian economy?
(by the way...if you're offended that I'm responding a few days after you posted this, I've been kinda busy with life to just dedicate my time to the frantic perusal of this 20+ page thread)
If, and/or when, you reply to my posts(s), is of no consequence to me. If you want your own questions answered, then I refer you to the post by Concerned Mom. There's is no need for me to repeat what she said. Now run along.
If, and/or when, you reply to my posts(s), is of no consequence to me. If you want your own questions answered, then I refer you to the post by Concerned Mom. There's is no need for me to repeat what she said. Now run along.
No, all you need to do is explain what's so horrific about those happenings.
From what I read there were only two things that appeared excessive:
1.) An accusation was made about pornographic material in school libraries. Assuming that the material is pornographic, which I highly doubt, then I agree it shouldn't be in a school library. It should be quite obvious to anyone with a brain bigger than the size of a pea, that pornographic material in school libraries is not an unavoidable consequence of gay people getting married.
2.) The suggestion that gay couples were "testing" businesses such as restaurants by visiting them and then overtly "fondling" each other. Assuming this is even true, I don't think that that's appropriate behaviour for a heterosexual couple so it's not for a gay couple either. As with 1.), these occurrences needn't be a consequence of allowing gays to marry.