The Gaming Den

Yes, paying several thousand dollars in additional taxes means we live alright. We also live 'alright' in one of the most expensive places to live... So we live in what's probably a ghetto, and still pay more rent than most of you. (Unless you live in metro New York City, San Diego, or San Francisco proper) So yeah, top 10%, here we are.

However, it's still an injustice that we pay more taxes than someone else not for what is taxable, but because our relationship is not approved by a bare majority of religions.

This affects our ability to save up and actually do something with my spouse's income. We could live somewhere with a yard with that tax instead paid in rent. Or we could take a week a Disneyland staying at the nice on-site hotel there. Or we could pay for half to a third of a new car. Or a third of a downpayment of an average new home in our county.

But we don't get those options that our neighbors have, because our family isn't considered a family.

-Crissa

PS: Shad, you're an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between 'willful' and 'unable'. If you show up in court and say, 'Please, I'm poor and can't afford the fine' you won't and pretty much can't be proven to be willfully disregarding the fine unless you're wearing an $800 watch to an $800 fine.

Crissa wrote:Yes, paying several thousand dollars in additional taxes means we live alright. We also live 'alright' in one of the most expensive places to live... So we live in what's probably a ghetto, and still pay more rent than most of you. (Unless you live in metro New York City, San Diego, or San Francisco proper) So yeah, top 10%, here we are.

However, it's still an injustice that we pay more taxes than someone else not for what is taxable, but because our relationship is not approved by a bare majority of religions.

This affects our ability to save up and actually do something with my spouse's income. We could live somewhere with a yard with that tax instead paid in rent. Or we could take a week a Disneyland staying at the nice on-site hotel there. Or we could pay for half to a third of a new car. Or a third of a downpayment of an average new home in our county.

But we don't get those options that our neighbors have, because our family isn't considered a family.

-Crissa

You're absolutely right that the disparity isn't just or fair, and I totally agree with you about that. Nor am I dismissing your concern because of the quantity of your household income; though I am somewhat curious about how you and your partner haven't been able to work the system more to your favor. Even with a couple thousand dollars in creative accounting fees, given the amounts you're dealing with it seems like you'd come out ahead.

My mental image was more silly and less insulting. 8)

Crissa wrote:However, it's still an injustice that we pay more taxes than someone else not for what is taxable, but because our relationship is not approved by a bare majority of religions.

Whether the relationship is approved by a church or religion is irrelevant. Your problem is that it's not approved by the government - that's who you pay your taxes to.

You can argue that religious people have kept the government from writing into law the legality of your relationship - that may have a trace of merit - but when it comes right down to it, you pay more in taxes because the government says your relationship isn't, not because a religion says your relationship isn't. And once gay marriages are legal, you will [hopefully] pay fewer taxes also because the government says your relationship is, despite religion saying your relationship isn't.

Crissa wrote:However, it's still an injustice that we pay more taxes than someone else not for what is taxable, but because our relationship is not approved by a bare majority of religions.

Yes, it is an injustice. Don't blame people for exercising their democratic rights, blame your state Constitution for being a piece of trash. Believe me, if I could cram my morality down someone's throat with the state Constitution and a majority of voters backing me up then I would, because I think it would be best for all involved. I imagine most people would do the same.

The real problem is that their morality is jerkass and mine is much better.

Crissa wrote:Yes, paying several thousand dollars in additional taxes means we live alright. We also live 'alright' in one of the most expensive places to live... So we live in what's probably a ghetto, and still pay more rent than most of you.

This, however, is baffling. HINT: Not a ghetto. I've lived in one and my rent was very much NOT what I'm paying now.


Aren't one of you FTM or MTF? Does that qualify you as legally your pre-gender? Or not? I'm ignorant of the legal details and possibilities.

Crissa wrote:PS: Shad, you're an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between 'willful' and 'unable'. If you show up in court and say, 'Please, I'm poor and can't afford the fine' you won't and pretty much can't be proven to be willfully disregarding the fine unless you're wearing an $800 watch to an $800 fine.

No, you are an idiot for thinking courts give a damn, or even the system. Do you know how many people already are arrested these days for not paying medical bills, because they just don't make enough and serve jail time and still have to pay restitution, even after they lost their job from going to jail for having a sick family member?

You live in your fantasy world all you want, but the real world works differently.

This is all before any law passed, but just because of collections agencies, that are NOT included in anyway so far that the public is protected by them.

You could lose your home, car, or any other property as it is for not being able to afford bills that you have no control over. The new kick int he teeth is just because you don't have and cannot afford insurance you can ALSO be fined or go to jail.

You just don't get what the problem really is with it all.

People are being forced to take some business insurance that they cannot afford because there is nothing in their area they qualify for or can afford, and you better believe the insurance agencies will want to go after people, because they will be losing money when you don't have insurance; all because there isn't anything like medicare for all that you pay taxes into and those taxes are used.

The subject of jail or fines because you are sick and don't have insurance is stupid. But they have been stupid for a long time since many states require auto insurance and then throw people to the dogs and don't have anything set up or to help them with decent insurance. Any accident you are involved in or involving JUST your vehicle, means your insurance goes up, and you have to have it.

Forcing ANY kind of insurance on people is fuckign stupid anf wrong, so why kick then in the teeth as well with threat of jail time?

Land of the free my ASS!

Maj wrote:Whether the relationship is approved by a church or religion is irrelevant. Your problem is that it's not approved by the government - that's who you pay your taxes to.

I'll take it up to the next nevel. The "relationship" should have no bearing whatsoever on the amount of taxes a person pays; period. This is a byproduct of needlessly complex tax codes and giving exceptions to "special interests."

Remember that at one time, being legally married resulted in a tax "penalty." (Although this was for a couple with similiar income.) In Cirssa's case because of the ability of the couple to average the income over the two people, filing jointly is a greater advantage over filing two (or one) single return.

Captain Lou Albano passed away today.



http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/Othe ... 6012.shtml

He was a great actor and personality even for those that don't like wrestling.

Crissa wrote:So we live in what's probably a ghetto,

The ghettos where you live are nicer than the nicest part of the town I live. Stop whining. And if it really is that bad, fucking move. It's your fault for living in a shitty place.

I got an idea. Those not wanting to pay taxes get no use of the money. They have to get off the roads, no protection from the armed forces, no food, since much money is subsidized to help farmers out in order to provide that food, no complaints about anything regulated by the government, no due process or right to any kind of trial for anything...etc, etc, etc.

That should solve the problem. People don't pay taxes and get no use out of the money form them. That means no social security since it all goes in with the health care plan.

I can't stand rich fucks, that think they have it so hard. Let's all cry for Paris Hilton, because she has so much money, while many people barely have enough to eat working 50 hours a week.

Actually, in the State of California, while we aren't allowed to 'marry' - we are given all the rights the state can give us. We file jointly, which means that my spouse can take me as a dependent. We cannot be forced to speak in court against one another, and we automatically qualify as a guardian of the spouse's children. For state benefits, we qualify as a household (although our state is more lenient on that) and in California state taxes, there has never been a marriage 'penalty'.

And yes, it is religion. Government is just made of people, so when people act injustly, so does the government. Actual religious groups campaigned against my rights.

No, there isn't a tax shelter we can take. The previous administration worked very diligently to make sure that consenting adults cannot take other adults (unless they're heterosexual and married) as dependents. That's why we're paying outrageous taxes on our health benefits. We pay more in taxes on the health benefits than the cost for the health benefits themselves!

That's seriously unfair.

-Crissa

PS: shad, give it up. That's the status quo you're arguing against. 60+% of bankruptcies and some large number of foreclosures are due to people owing for medical expenses. "The IRS threw us out" is seriously not a contender with the private medical collector.

tzor wrote:I'll take it up to the next nevel. The "relationship" should have no bearing whatsoever on the amount of taxes a person pays; period. This is a byproduct of needlessly complex tax codes and giving exceptions to "special interests."

I can almost understand the concept if you're the head of household and responsible for the living costs of people who don't work for money (parents/children), but from what Josh's mentioned, you don't have to be married to claim head of household, so that's out.

Except the most recent administration nixed that via procedure, Maj. You can only claim a 'qualifying relative'.

They seriously cut it so that you have to be related by blood, there's a means test, a household test, a citizenship test (no immigrant grandmas unable to work!), etc. They don't have to live with you, but while there are still references to 'regular dependent', dependent now only has two categories: qualifying child, and qualifying relative.

And I suppose I am lucky to live in a ghetto that's 'nicer' than Count's, since we have singing birds, magnolia and pine trees, and more sunny days along with our squabbling young couples, drug and theft problems, and first generation immigrants from across the globe like the nice old lady who speaks no English across the way I give my deposit cans to so she and her grandson can take them to the store.

-Crissa

Crissa:

Someone has done something to help you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhfzvzKm_xk

Crissa: I support you 99% of the way. But until you've lived in a Bombay slum or hell on a street where water, dirty water, is a godsend to come by, Until this above mentioned time and place in your life, don't call yourself one who lives in a Ghetto.



THere are ghettos and slums in America but unless shown otherwise Cali doesn't strike as Ghetto country.

If you notice, I didn't claim it was a ghetto.

I guess all injustices are moot as long as you live in the golden state.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:If you notice, I didn't claim it was a ghetto.

I guess all injustices are moot as long as you live in the golden state.

-Crissa

actually, it seems what people are saying is "THERE ARE PEOPLE STARVING IN AFRICA!! CHILDREN PEOPLE!! WHO CARES ABOUT THE PLIGHT OF GAYS WHEN CHILDREN ARE STARVING!!??"

to which I of course reply, fuck the starving people.

Crissa, what's the area around you like that it might qualify as a ghetto? I lived in what might qualify as a latino ghetto, and while rent wasn't as bad as it could have been, it was too steep for what we got...

Crissa wrote:If you notice, I didn't claim it was a ghetto.

I guess all injustices are moot as long as you live in the golden state. :roll:

-Crissa

Oh get away from that shit.I said I support you. I just don't think you can say you live in a Ghetto or even a Ghetto-like environ.

I speak of what COunt and others have already quoted and I'll do it again for emphasis.

Crissa wrote:Yes, paying several thousand dollars in additional taxes means we live alright. We also live 'alright' in one of the most expensive places to live... So we live in what's probably a ghetto, and still pay more rent than most of you. (Unless you live in metro New York City, San Diego, or San Francisco proper) So yeah, top 10%, here we are..

Your situation while deplorable is still better than the Ghetto-life on a lot of levels.
I can't say that you don't have woes worse than a Ghetto/slum-dweller but it's safe to say your life is at least a lot healthier and much more 'able' in that you are given choices to go forward in life. Did that make any sense? I mean going forward as in advancement socially, fiscally, to a degree, morally (if it means away from crime).

There that's what I mean. What the state did to you and your SO is fucked up beyond belief. What the religious wingnuts did in aiding this by their campaigns and by coming in from out of state to fuck up your life by changing a bill is still fuckwadettery. I agree with you totally on this issue.

Just not on the other.

Oh, totally, hence the smilie.

Our town isn't so bad, as towns go, so the low-rent sections is similarly made up of people who are really trying hard as opposed to just trapped. There's jobs to be had, just... over half the square footage of industrial and office space built here is empty, though. And there's alot more idle hands this year than last.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:If you notice, I didn't claim it was a ghetto.

I guess all injustices are moot as long as you live in the golden state.

-Crissa

Yes, I care that you can't get married. I don't care that you think you have it so rough. There are degrees to which I care about you, which isn't very far. (I would very much like to see you and your spouse be able to legally get married AND see you stop whining about your life. No juoke, you whine more than I do, and that's just sad.)

See, I can wish social justice for you while also wishing you'd just shut up. I can defend your rights even if I don't like you.

We don't have it bad.

But it's not fair that a couple like us could donate several thousand dollars to oppressing us, take it as a tax write-off donation to their church, and still have more net income than us.

That's disgusting.

-Crissa

I never asserted the contrary.

Maj wrote:Whether the relationship is approved by a church or religion is irrelevant. Your problem is that it's not approved by the government - that's who you pay your taxes to.

Religion is to blame for people voting pond scum into office. Yours in specific, I've read the policy document. The LDS specifically encourages people to vote for candidates opposed to gay marriage. That makes them terrible people and makes it so that I have to try really, really hard not to hate you by association. And that would be unfair since I would generally describe you as being a worthwhile person.

Draco_Argentum wrote:

Maj wrote:Whether the relationship is approved by a church or religion is irrelevant. Your problem is that it's not approved by the government - that's who you pay your taxes to.

Religion is to blame for people voting pond scum into office. Yours in specific, I've read the policy document. The LDS specifically encourages people to vote for candidates opposed to gay marriage. That makes them terrible people and makes it so that I have to try really, really hard not to hate you by association. And that would be unfair since I would generally describe you as being a worthwhile person.

(sigh) Draco, you would have to hate a few more on this board because of the association biz.

My wife is/was a LDSer & and Virgil's whole family were LDSers. Neither of us are. but it still stands the same.

it's really stupid to hate someone for a religious choice.

Christianity says you must throw stones at jews. I don't hate every single christian for that.

Hinduism (mine) & Budhism (also in a way) state it's okay to forget your morality if it helps you gain nirvana. So I can fucking kill people all day if I truly believe it'll get me to nirvana.

Jews & Muslims have the same shiite as well.

I mean this is fucked up but that's a policy decision rather than dogma.

A_Cynic wrote:Christianity says you must throw stones at Jews.

If you are going to make the C caps, then make sure to make the J caps as well please to be fair. Thanks.

As to what is said rather than a simple typo in saying it..... WHAT?

Because Christians tried to take over the Jewish religion, and not everyone agreed with them to give up the Old Testament, and just adopt the new one.

But then I have always known Christians to be the biggest bigots in the world trying to convert everyone because "Thal shalt have no other Gods before me" or whatever that commandment says. You know the ones given to the Jews when they were freed from slavery.

But lets not get into all the things "Christians" stole from fiction and other places to create their religion on a "gaming" forum. Instead we should only discuss about them, how they attacked a game for many years because it promoted use of fictional creatures, while they sit teaching people a magic man waved his hands and in 7 days created a planet, the universe, and life itself. Whose fiction will win in the end?

But seriously, where does it say to throw stones other than the part "ye without sin cast the first stone", or something like that?

Let’s make one thing clear, there is no such thing as a single concept of “Christianity.” (There is no such thing as a single concept of :Judaism or even Islam.) The general sect (thanks to the so called “Reformation” they are called “Denominations” in Christianity) that was so against D&D was also as strongly against the Roman Catholic Church who were (along with what are now Greek Orthodox and a few smaller groups in the Middle East) the first Christians.

There is nothing inherent in Christianity that is anti-Semitic. And any stone throwing is definitely out!