|
rkajdi posted:* It also gives some credence to the guys talking about the shadowy "Gay Agenda" loving with people because of their opposition. Because if you start headhunting on this issue, you're no better than the shitheads who did the same to Clinton or Spitzer. To be fair, Spitzer got caught because he was a public official making monetary transactions that basically scream "I AM LAUNDERING MONEY" (a lot of transactions just under the reporting limit) and so the FBI opened a corruption investigation figuring he was moving dirty cash. Then it turned out no, that was for hookers 
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 17, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:To be fair, Spitzer got caught because he was a public official making monetary transactions that basically scream "I AM LAUNDERING MONEY" (a lot of transactions just under the reporting limit) and so the FBI opened a corruption investigation figuring he was moving dirty cash. Then it turned out no, that was for hookers I thought there also was an element of "private dick hired by a banker caught him doing something untoward", which is more what I'm addressing. Allowing people to play gotcha is a game LGBT people don't win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
e: nm
Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:* It continues to enforce the idea that people's sexuality is something to put up for ridicule. Sorry, but if everybody's consenting, it's nobody else's business. Playing adultery cop is fine in a ravanchist way, but the solution is to take the high ground when poo poo like this comes out and say that it's wrong to judge this rear end in a top hat just the same as it is to judge someone for being LGBT or having a kink. So judging me for being gay is "just the same" as someone judging an adulterous, lying, closeted anti-gay politician? Maybe we should ban discrimination against the poor closeted gay-haters, maybe call it "Larry's Law" after one of these poor victims. EDIT: I love how you conflate three entirely different things in one compeltely asinine statement. No being LGBT is nothing like "having a kink" which is in turn nothing like being a lying, cheating, gay-hating piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:* It doesn't put someone any better into the position. The voters who have an issue with some having an affair or being in the closet are going to put in another knuckledragging idiot. You seem to be missing the basic point that nobody in this thread cares about the sexuality in a vacuum (at least, I think nobody in this thread does). It's the dissonance between their public and private choices that makes them targets for ridicule. Glass houses, planks in one's own eye, etc.---Western standards of morality have exceedingly low opinions of hypocrisy, and very few people will shed tears over hypocrites being exposed as such. You also seem to be missing that affairs, in general, have at least one party that isn't consenting. If everybody consented it'd be swinging (e: I guess?), and again something that "family values" voters would find troubling. Finally, let's say somebody new does get put into that position. There's been no change in the number of politicians that support/oppose same-sex marriage, but a number of voters might have been affected. And are you really saying you'd prefer to have a hypocrite in office over someone who can claim their own moral high ground? What is gained/lost through that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
I should probably clarify I'm against outing gay/bi people. Straight people having affairs can go gently caress themselves. - a gay child of divorce
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So judging me for being gay is "just the same" as someone judging an adulterous, lying, closeted anti-gay politician? Maybe we should ban discrimination against the poor closeted gay-haters, maybe call it "Larry's Law" after one of these poor victims. Well you're talking about the guy, who despite being in a Any of his opinions should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
The real solution is to anonymously leak the scandalous information to the press and hope no one traces it back to your office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:
Who cares? Even if that does happen, you still exposed an rear end in a top hat for being one and ruined his career because he's a hypocrite. Even if the new guy is also an rear end in a top hat, you have already ruined one where once there were two assholes. Find a way to ruin the new rear end in a top hat. quote:* It continues to enforce the idea that people's sexuality is something to put up for ridicule. Sorry, but if everybody's consenting, it's nobody else's business. Playing adultery cop is fine in a ravanchist way, but the solution is to take the high ground when poo poo like this comes out and say that it's wrong to judge this rear end in a top hat just the same as it is to judge someone for being LGBT or having a kink. No. The reason she is doing this is not to put the individuals in question to shame for having sexual preferences (regardless of how you feel about them). She is doing this because the people in question ridicule and harass others for their sexual preferences, while proclaiming their much higher and righteous standards, and then not even meeting them themselves. People should not be allowed to get away with hypocrisy, especially when it pertains to a topic you wish to defend. Not outing them will send the message that it's ok to defend "family values" while having an affair. It's never right and anyone with a working conscience will see that. It's not some crushing blow for the cause, but weakening the base by exposing them to the reality of the assholes they previously supported makes it easier for victories in the future. And before you say it will just make those people hide their secrets better, if they weren't idiots they wouldn't be in a position to have them exposed. They deserve what they get because they are morons and one less moron in the world the better. Stupid people learn better by example and nothing gives a good example like public humiliation, especially when it's actually deserved. quote:* It also gives some credence to the guys talking about the shadowy "Gay Agenda" loving with people because of their opposition. Because if you start headhunting on this issue, you're no better than the shitheads who did the same to Clinton or Spitzer. I don't see how this would give them ammunition without them having to also admit to being ok with adultery. Sort of wrecks your conspiracy of those nasty gays with their horrible family ruining ways when it's being pushed by people who support affairs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:Fucks sake, you don't accept these tactics when used against your cause, so don't use them yourself. rkajdi posted:I know there's this idea that somehow we can out somebody and make Ted Haggart II happen, but honestly that won't happen and also moves you away from the moral high ground. Grundulum responded really well to rkajdi's other two points, so I'll respond to this one: rkajdi posted:* It also gives some credence to the guys talking about the shadowy "Gay Agenda" loving with people because of their opposition. Because if you start headhunting on this issue, you're no better than the shitheads who did the same to Clinton or Spitzer.  crap; I don't pay attention to any of those idiots either. Hell, go ahead and let them scream about the "Gay Agenda", I fully support the "Gay Agenda" (namely full and equal fights for LGBT people). "Headhunting for Clinton" isn't a very good example because Clinton was getting sexual favors while he was the president, and while married to Hillary. The Republicans went completely, utterly insane attacking him over it (Christ, did they ever), but that doesn't mean everybody should have just ignored it. The fact that the President is having an affair can destroy the trust that people have in the President, and it colors everything that happens afterwards, even if the issue is resolved. It takes a lot of time to regain that lost trust. Oh, and if nothing else, a non-public affair is a serious issue because somebody who finds out can literally blackmail the President, which is bad for a whole host of serious reasons. You know, like what's happening right now in the Alabama legislature.
fade5 fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jan 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
So, do some of you dumbdumbs actually think politicians lying to the public should not be exposed or what. Or you think saying "stop lying or I'll tell everyone what you said is a lie" is a tactic so reprehensible it's the same as unnecessary physical torture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
In actual news, Roy Moore, the judge famous for trying to keep the ten commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building, is trying to pull that whole nullification argument again. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/01/30/alabama-supreme-court-chief-justice-calls-confrontation-federal-courts-marriage-equality/ The Dark One fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jan 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:From Wiki:
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:In actual news, Roy Moore, the judge famous for trying to keep the ten commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building, is trying to pull that whole nullification argument again. Next amendment to the Constitution needs to include a line that bars people from public office, especially a judicial position, if they disregard things like the Supremacy Clause.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
wid posted:So, do some of you dumbdumbs actually think politicians lying to the public should not be exposed or what. Or you think saying "stop lying or I'll tell everyone what you said is a lie" is a tactic so reprehensible it's the same as unnecessary physical torture. No see just like how my sexuality means I'm attracted to men and only men, apparently their sexuality means they can't it up unless they're loving a woman behind their wife's back. It's downright bigoted of me to think that maybe if these people who are loving a woman behind their wives' backs also make a career in talking about family values and the sanctity of marriage, it's fair game to say 'so not in your case or what' next time they go off about how my living in their country is BASICALLY the equivalent of cancer on humanity's morals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Next amendment to the Constitution needs to include a line that bars people from public office, especially a judicial position, if they disregard things like the Supremacy Clause. He got yanked off the bench before, for the 10 commandments issue. I feel like a state Supreme Court justice being removed from office isn't common to begin with, but the same guy twice? At least SPLC filed a complaint on it, let's see what comes of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So judging me for being gay is "just the same" as someone judging an adulterous, lying, closeted anti-gay politician? Maybe we should ban discrimination against the poor closeted gay-haters, maybe call it "Larry's Law" after one of these poor victims. They are all exactly the same thing-- the public judging of a private sexual act. Since a decent amount of the rhetoric around gay rights is "what goes on in my bedroom is none of your business", it's incredibly hypocritical to not extend it everyone. And I also don't think for a second that allowing the continued media circus around people's sexuality doesn't hurt LGBT people more than any other group. The reason to get rid of it isn't to protect some anti-gay hypocrite, it's to keep the same tool from being used against you. And if you think closeted gay people don't have more to lose than some jackass screwing around on his wife, I think you haven't thought the situation through enough. Also, not one person is willing to stand up and give a reason why this is right but the witch hunt against Clinton was wrong that isn't simple team politics. And the main point is you don't get anything out of doing it. Do you really think these politicians just appear out of the ether? Their constituents elect them, and by and large all you'll do is replace one anti-gay bigot with another. Where's the gain? Especially since you're allowing the continuation of a tool used directly to oppress you. If you're going to go after someone, go after the supporters-- the elected politician is the symptom not the cause. I'm all for pushing back the anti-LGBT position, but you're not going to get anywhere by doing it from the top down instead of the bottom up. And N4I, I have to ask this-- if I had those opinions and wasn't married, would you consider my position (that employment and housing protection is more important than marriage and should be addressed first) any differently? I'd hope the answer is no, but all your ad hom stuff gives me an idea that it might be yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
I'm not N4I but I'd consider anyone who shits on good news with 'actually those rights don't matter' a shithead, but yea I guess doing so while enjoying those rights we're denied would make you a bigger shithead if we're going by scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
No your gross over simplification of the situation and assertion that the only people who could possibly benefit from marriage equality are affluent white queens is still pretty lovely. The fact that you say this while in a legally recognized relationship that society in general values more than any same sex relationship is extraordinarily privileged. Edit: also your attempt to frame it in a way that anyone who doesn't agree with you is tacitly approving of racism and homelessness is disingenuous as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I'm not N4I but I'd consider anyone who shits on good news with 'actually those rights don't matter' a shithead, but yea I guess doing so while enjoying those rights we're denied would make you a bigger shithead if we're going by scale. But if you can't exercise those rights without economic violence being used against you (in this case losing your job/home for being out) those rights really don't exist for you. That's my point. If this gay marriage fight actually leads to protected class or some other methodology to force the states that don't have an inclusive ENDA to protect LGBT people from economic violence, then it's done something incredibly useful. Otherwise, just being allowed to be married in places like Alabama or Oklahoma (places where LGBT rights aren't popular and will have to provided judicially) isn't a fight that matters as much to LGBT people there. Who cares if I can marry the person I love if it costs me my career to do it? That's not something we should force people to choose between. And gay marriage does nothing to help anyone who's not going to get married, which is statistically the people at or near the bottom of the economic pyramid. Those are real issues to discuss, but they aren't as sexy to the people who made gay marriage acceptable to the political establishment (i.e. rich gay men on Wall Street) so they're not getting the attention. While gay rights won with the voting base by people coming out, it would have another minimum wage increase (popular with the public but dead politically) without the rich men pushing for it with the political establishment. And I don't see those guys doing the same for anyone else, because I honestly don't trust the rich to do anything for anyone but themselves. I'm sorry I'm apparently a shithead for bringing this stuff up, but it seems like a lot of people are looking at this through rose colored glasses. The only thing I can really compare it to is the Obama election in '08, when I saw a huge gnashing of teeth as the man showed his true center-right position that was there for anyone to see ahead of time. I'd love to be wrong on this, but I don't think I will be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:And the main point is you don't get anything out of doing it. Do you really think these politicians just appear out of the ether? Their constituents elect them, and by and large all you'll do is replace one anti-gay bigot with another. Where's the gain? And it has nothing to do with policing people's sexuality and everything to do with hypocrisy. Let's take drug use, for example. I don't give a gently caress if you smoke weed, if you're Joe Blow and I find out you like the reefer I'm not running to the cops to tell them. However, if you're a War on Drugs politician who supports heavy sentences for recreational drug users and I see you toking it up at a Celine Dion concert you bet your sweet rear end I'm taking pictures and sending them to every media outlet I can. Just like posting all the government subsidies that rich farmer politicians receive when they're crying about people on food stamps. gently caress them, gently caress them, gently caress them. There is no gently caress you big enough. The minute you say "we should judge people based upon their private lives" then you make yourself fair game. I"m not the one saying it, they are. But somehow pointing out how somebody screaming about Biblical principles is violating those principles is bad because
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:No your gross over simplification of the situation and assertion that the only people who could possibly benefit from marriage equality are affluent white queens is still pretty lovely. State marriage is a contract. It's benefits are mostly property related, so they disproportionately benefit the wealthy. So in broad demographics it's really helping affluent white gay men hide their wealth from the state while tossing a few bones (medical insurance, visitation, child custody, taxes, and immigration are the ones most commonly mentioned) to everyone else is the economic reality. I still don't understand why this is a lovely point to bring up. The fact that the early cases were all about inheritance should have been a huge clue for people. And before you say anything, I'm 100% against this kind of wealth hiding in any married relationship. We need to give the wealthy fewer ways to pass unearned privilege to their families. If we're talking the emotional/love side of marriage, people already had that. The people who were going to respect gay relationships didn't suddenly respect them more once the state allowed you to go from long time partners to spouses. And the homophobic shits aren't going to treat your relationship as any more real once you have the marriage license from the state. To really fix that problem we're going to need to re-engineer society, which I'm all in favor of but apparently am a crazy radical for ever suggesting. You're looking at this as the first step in some long progression. I see it at best as the New Deal. As in you better get everything you can right now, because you'll never get another shot at the ring again in your lifetime. Racial Civil Rights seem to hold to this pattern too. A few wins followed by a long nothing instead of some continual forward march. I'd rather grab rights that primarily help those at the bottom first than ones that primarily help those at the top. Again, I'd love to be wrong and get both, but again history doesn't exactly bode well for giving the rich what they want first and hoping they're cool with giving something to the rest of us once they got theirs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:But somehow pointing out how somebody screaming about Biblical principles is violating those principles is bad because Because then they might get replaced by a different politician with similar views, and that's bad because Edit: no really, how is it bad? By the way, Nostalgia4Infinity, I'm arguing with rkajdi because if he posts stuff like that unopposed it gives the impression to others that there's agreement in the thread. Like with that hypothetical politician in Alabama, I'm not looking to change rkajdi's opinions, but those of the more numerous lurkers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:So in broad demographics it's really helping affluent white gay men hide their wealth from the state Stop right here. This is not what marriage does, at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
So glad to know that things like medical insurance, visitation, child custody, taxes and immigration are just "a few bones" compared with rich gays being allowed to hide their assets. Jesus gently caress, did Three Olives kill your dog or something? Here's a loving tip: the majority of gay people getting married aren't rich, so that one thing you're worried about isn't going to affect 99% of gay marriages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Next amendment to the Constitution needs to include a line that bars people from public office, especially a judicial position, if they disregard things like the Supremacy Clause. With the specific exception of Gonzales v Raich, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Seriously though rkajdi if you think marriage is for hiding assets, uh, well I hope you're prepared to be audited by the IRS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Holy hell, can we just skip ahead to the part where you get run out of the thread -- again? However, instead of showing up again in a few months with yet more lovely opinions and privileged handwringing you just don't come back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Where's the loss? So you're cool with policing people, but only the ones you disagree with? You understand how that's not a standard to run things by, right? If it's wrong for the Drug Warrior, it's wrong for Joe Blow and should be treated exactly equal. Justice isn't supposed to be a sliding scale where some dude gets to slip by on stuff because he's a good guy, but gently caress this dude because he's an rear end in a top hat. You argument is the same one that lets cops get away with all the criminal stuff they do, since they're obviously "good guys" and should be cut some slack. To use your subsidy example, would you cut the politician who wants to starve food stamp recipients some slack if he didn't get a farm subsidy? The people on food stamps are exactly as starving/dead in either case, so I don't see the point in making a distinction. And here's the reason why bringing up the "Biblical principles" (in this case we're discussing the blowhard stuff, not love your neighbor Jesus stuff) to judge the hypocrite is bad. It reinforces the idea that these ideas are a valid way to criticize someone. It's like arguing with a White Nationalist from the starting position that he slept with a black person instead of the just dismissing his belief system out of hand. You don't get ahead by assuming your opponent's moral framework is correct and arguing within it, you get ahead by tearing it down and replacing it with your own. By trying to use sex shaming against these hypocrites, all you do is reinforce the idea that sex shaming is okay. It is legitimizing a very powerful weapon that has been used to oppress LGBT people for at least our entire lifetime, and in reality much longer. Agreeing to this moral framework in effect legitimizes the sex shaming that LGBT people receive. I'm not saying you agree with this oppression, but you argument effectively legitimizes it. The better option is to defy their idea, and replace it with one that does not oppress--sexual liberation. You don't win by appropriating the master's tools, you win by destroying them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Justify your assertion that marriage is for hiding assets with literally anything, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:So glad to know that things like medical insurance, visitation, child custody, taxes and immigration are just "a few bones" compared with rich gays being allowed to hide their assets. Jesus gently caress, did Three Olives kill your dog or something? rkajdi posted:It's like arguing with a White Nationalist from the starting position that he slept with a black person instead of the just dismissing his belief system out of hand. You don't get ahead by assuming your opponent's moral framework is correct and arguing within it, you get ahead by tearing it down and replacing it with your own. "[A]ll the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement." said Strom Thurmond, the white man who at the age of 22 had a relationship, and eventually a mixed-race daughter, with his family's 16 year old black maid Carrie Butler. Nintendo Kid posted:Seriously though rkajdi if you think marriage is for hiding assets, uh, well I hope you're prepared to be audited by the IRS. 
fade5 fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Jan 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Holy poo poo you are thick.SubponticatePoster posted:And it has nothing to do with policing people's sexuality and everything to do with hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
I don't want to sound like I'm siding with rkadji here, cause seriously. The gently caress dude? But wasn't the problem that the person was going to blackmail them with the info rather than just releasing it outright? Cause just releasing the info isn't a problem. Blackmail is pretty serious though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Who cares if I can marry the person I love if it costs me my career to do it? People who value their partner more than money, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
RaspberryCommie posted:I don't want to sound like I'm siding with rkadji here, cause seriously. The gently caress dude? Yes the elected official admitted to conspiracy to commit multiple felonies. That's totally what she was saying and isn't ridiculous at all. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:State marriage is a contract. It's benefits are mostly property related, so they disproportionately benefit the wealthy. So in broad demographics it's really helping affluent white gay men hide their wealth from the state while tossing a few bones (medical insurance, visitation, child custody, taxes, and immigration are the ones most commonly mentioned) to everyone else is the economic reality. Get the gently caress out of here with this weapons-grade stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:So glad to know that things like medical insurance, visitation, child custody, taxes and immigration are just "a few bones" compared with rich gays being allowed to hide their assets. Jesus gently caress, did Three Olives kill your dog or something? I'm talking from an overall societal standpoint. In dollar amounts, these are rounding errors compared to the income and inheritance tax relief to the upper class gays. Yes, it's the 1% but they're the ones getting the disgusting relief from this. Let's put it another way. If there was a tax giveaway that gave $1000 to the upper 1% and $10 to the lower 40%, you'd understand that if you were in the lower 40% while you benefited the actual reward was to the upper class, right? And it gets especially stilted once you realize that only out of the goodness of your employer's heart is he not firing you for claiming your $10. The worst part in real life is that the difference is even larger than the 100x difference I explained here. Nintendo Kid posted:Seriously though rkajdi if you think marriage is for hiding assets, uh, well I hope you're prepared to be audited by the IRS. I guess sheltering is the proper term, since everything is done above board and legally. But what else can you call the difference in inheritance tax between an unmarried couple and a married one? The married one shelters way more of its assets and is effectively able to pass on much more unearned cash to the next generation. I don't see how you are acting like this is some crazy thing that doesn't exist, or more importantly that it doesn't highly benefit the wealthy. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Holy hell, can we just skip ahead to the part where you get run out of the thread -- again? However, instead of showing up again in a few months with yet more lovely opinions and privileged handwringing you just don't come back. Basically, your position is either that I'm too radical if I'm to the left of you, or too conservative and privileged if I'm to the right. Sorry, the Russel Brand quote seems entirely too on the nose to not apply. I also love that judging everyone by the same moral framework is now considered a lovely opinion instead of basic equality. When I want to limit religious exemptions, I'm some sort of radical monster willing to just go too far, but when you want to savage a politician using sex shaming, it's 100% okay. Stake out a consistent position and stick with it. Either it's okay to attack people and institutions for being anti-gay or it's not. And seriously, go to hell. I know you've got some idiot hardon about identity copping me, but I don't particularly care. I know you don't like the fact that I have opposite priorities to you economically, but that doesn't mean I'm against LGBT rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Then you'd better get a divorce because oh no rich straight people are benefitting more from being married than you are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:People who value their partner more than money, presumably. Telling someone they have to give up their career for their marriage is unrealistic to the middle class, and downright crazy to the lower class. It's why Loving v. Virginia wouldn't have had much practical effect if the Civil Rights Act didn't already exist. If your employer could just fire you and your landlord could evict you if you got in an interracial relationship, the right would exist on paper but not as a practical reality. Why is this so hard of a concept to get across to people? Love conquers all is a nice idea, but it doesn't fit the economic realities on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 17, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
rkajdi posted:I guess sheltering is the proper term, since everything is done above board and legally. But what else can you call the difference in inheritance tax between an unmarried couple and a married one? It doesn't hide assets that's for drat sure. Also "sheltering assets" is way more useful for poor folks because a rich dude can afford shell companies to take care of it for him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 04:00
|
|